Author: Kailee Havrda

In the late 2011s to 2012, Post-Soviet Russia was filled with protests. These protests mainly seemed to be surrounding Putin, but also authoritarianism and the patriarchy and more. People dreamt of a new, better Russia than the current one and some dreamed of leaving Russia for some place better. When Putin sought to be re-re-elected after a four year gap, many people were upset. This type of reaction to Putin was not always the case like the song “A Man like Putin” shows, nonetheless it appeared people were not thrilled to have him back. As we have seen in class punk music is often the genre of music for protesting and this appeared to have still been the case in Russia. During this time period, a performing protest group emerged called Pussy Riot. It is debated on whether or not to call them a protest group necessarily, but that dives into the issue of authenticity and who has the right to declare something authentic. Pussy Riot sought to perform in very public places and record their performances so that they can upload their art for more people to see it. They sang against Putin and the patriarchy (and his connection to the church), pushing how men have seemed to dominate their country, as well as for the rights of gays and women. They sang loud, proud, face covered, bright-colored, and publicly. They performed on garage/jail house roofs to the Red Square to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Sometimes they were able to escape, sometimes they got reprimanded in varying degrees. The worse was after the performance in the church that resulted in three of the five remaining Pussy Riots in jail. Now for two of these three, they were released early from their two year sentence. It appears that they continued to perform as we can tell by “Chaika” that came out in 2016. However, this video strays greatly from their normal ascetic of visual art, as well as the music itself is much longer.

1. Is Pussy Riot a punk band? What would make them a punk band and does anyone have the right to declare them one way or the other?
2. In their song, “Death to Jails, Freedom to Protests,” they say that freedom is to the protests. Why are they saying this? What do you think it means?
3. In “Words Will Break Cement” the author writes that this performance was not that successful. What are your thoughts on their approach?
4. What are your thoughts on the videos of the Pussy Riots? Like the fact that the audio is pre-recorded.
5. For some of the Pussy Riot’s performances the Russian police was seen ripping the masks off of the girls, beating them, etc. What does this show of the police force? Of the state of Russia?
6. The Pussy Riots wore bright colors, masks, and danced in outrages styles throughout most of their performances. What is your take on their style and why they might have done this?
7. What do the different songs show about Russia and its progression through time?
8. In the video, “Punk Prayer,” one of the girls can be seen on her knees, praying, and crossing herself, (0.04, 0.15, 0.53). What is the significance of this? What is the significance of showing the church at the end? Why would they write a song praying to God for Putin to be taken away?
9. Some of the things that are cheered for in the protests are feminists and LGBTs. What is your take on this?
10. In “Russia, I’m a Patriot,” the characters in the video all appear to be dressed provocatively while wearing proper headdresses. What do you think is meant behind the costume work in this video?

The great Beethoven…but which version? During the first World War, Beethoven was used as a propaganda symbol and with the war ending in very sad terms for Germany it might be expected that Beethoven’s image was tarnished. Nope. He instead was viewed as a tool for Revolution. No matter the view point one took in politics, Beethoven was the symbol you wanted. Except who Beethoven was and what he would have stood for was completely different depending on who you asked. To people on the left side he was this ‘broad and rough,’ aggressive man that would have scared the Bourgeoisie and would would have enlisted in the Revolution without hesitation (pg 90). Yet, to the right he would have been the complete picture of an Aristocrat. Beethoven became a shapeshifter of a man who ultimately was the ideal of Revolution for this time. Plus with the new technology and media of the time, people used every possible resource to get Beethoven’s face out there for everyone to see him and their beliefs. Around the time of the Third Reich, people were practically worshipping Beethoven and quote “fighting tooth and nail to demonstrate that he belonged exclusively to their circle of life.” (pg 142) Beethoven had turned into about 6 different men to different people. It was all the same music from the one man, yet he was taken in so many different ways. Then Hitler came to power and all of that stopped. Beethoven was viewed in one way and under one light, and that light was coming from the right side. People that supported modernism or were Jewish or non-conformers were kicked out because they were ruining the transition to this new age (and it quite frankly, affected a lot of people). The Nazi regime used the many forms of mass media to make sure this version was promoted and more importantly to ensure that without a doubt Beethoven was a PURE German, which meant clarifying his family life. (pg 146). Overall, Beethoven was used throughout time by many people to essentially unite people as one whether that is before or during the Third Reich or after. The only slight issue was whether or not, looking back, the real Beethoven was the uniting factor or was it who people wanted him to be at the time.

1. There are two most notable parts in the second clip of Beethoven’s Fourth Movement that are soft almost quiet to an explosive intense, in-your-face, sound (6.55 and 15.58). Do you think this was done with a purpose? If so what? And do you think this explosiveness added to his sound and his legacy?
2. It appears that one of the most notable things about his music is that it is powerful or intense (at least for me). Kurt Weill (page 93) comments that Beethoven’s music was ‘music of freedom’ then goes on to explain why. Would you have to or do you agree with this claim? Did the leftists have a strong claim to say that Beethoven was the ‘eternal rebel’ (pg 92)?
3. The Nazi regime practically remade Beethoven, not only taking him from a right-winged perspective, but also completely twisting his family history. What do you make of this? What does this show of the Nazis and/or of the people of Germany?
4. Who was the real Beethoven? It seems that everyone created their own form of Beethoven from how he looked to who he was. And because of this, do you think it started to feel that it no longer was about the music but more so the name, ‘Beethoven’?

Dennis, David B. Beethoven in German Politics: 1870-1989. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.