Mikhail Remizov. Write music

Write music
Mikhail Remizov

Publication date: December 14, 2000

Contrary to the cynicism of the crowd, political conflict is not “fussing at the trough”; Contrary to the idealism of the bookworm, this is not “competition of administrative programs.” Contrary to all “common sense”, political conflict is irrational.

The widely discussed issue of the anthem reveals in the best possible way that emotional, seething-instinctive, literal underground of political life, which is sometimes hidden behind the businesslike seriousness of faces, tight knots of ties and the protocol routine of words. The question about the anthem awakens emotion and provokes frankness. Even Chubais could not resist his favorite technocratic face, seduced by the cheap gesture of the prophet (however, we always guessed that the fiery, stupid heart of a liberal idealist beats in the chest of the “heartless” top manager). What then can we say about journalists? Read Izvestia , watch Itogi - the newspaper pages are splashing with saliva, and droplets of Kiselyov’s sweat appear on the blue screen. There is no doubt: this is not a matter of “interests”, not “platforms”, but of the intimacy of feelings. And not only the musical feeling. The point is the righteousness of the offended feeling. And this is doubly serious.

Political conflict is irrational, like a family scandal. So its subject, its specific occasion, recedes into the background before the process : the actual question of the anthem is already uninteresting - it fades and shrinks in the ecstatic dance of scandal.

In fact, if there is anything of interest in this whole story, it is, in my opinion, a certain new, albeit situational, but significant, configuration of the relationship between the president and the “public.” The public is a woman with the intelligent face of a Sorokin and the fussy talkativeness of a magpie. The public is a woman , and she was skimped on. At first she rolled her eyes, then became hysterical. From persuasion, half-tones, half-whispers, it suddenly broke into screeching, threats, characteristically feminine blackmail: “Either I, or Alexandrov’s music !” Finally, she frantically threw it in her face: “I don’t love you! I’m leaving you!” And, tearing a large, expensive, round plate like the letter “O” from the wall, she slammed it on the floor: “society is split” ...

A scandal is like a flash, an explosion. It is not only optional - it is random. Some five minutes - and it was as if he was not there. However, one cannot help but admit: in a condensed form, it contains the entire prehistory of family relationships. Therefore, when NTV recalls with renewed fervor the eternal antagonism between the authorities and the intelligentsia, it is difficult to internally disagree with this. They are right: everything they do can be considered the continuation and development of a certain tradition , more than a century-old hysterical tradition of the Russian intelligentsia. These features have long been and are painfully familiar: “superficiality of judgment, suggestibility, a tendency to fantasize, instability of mood, desire to attract attention to oneself” (a typical description of hysteria from encyclopedias) and, finally, this theatrical demonstrativeness of reactions, which so reveals in a hysterical person her deep internal dependence on his gaze. To remain himself, a man must not reciprocate precisely this: he must not, in turn, identify himself with her hysterical gaze. You cannot reciprocate hysteria, and this means: the subject of power should not be internally dependent on the public’s view. Perhaps someone will again call it tyranny , personally I will again call it freedom . The public is a woman, ask her and do the opposite.

However, everything is usually clear even before you ask. Feelings speak louder than words. The leaders of the “right” (oh those words!) were very offended that the Duma deprived them of the opportunity to “present their arguments.” It may be offensive, but in principle it is correct. After all, everything they can say is nonsense: arguments are generally the tenth thing. Arguments are always just an experience of post factum rationalization. The question, I repeat, is about feelings, about the authenticity of primary political emotion, which, precisely as such, belongs to the realm of pre-linguistic experience: first you hate - and only then do you argue .

Truly, the irrational is deeper than words. However, it is also explicable , and it can rise to the fullness of its expressiveness. Where? Well, for example, in music. At its core, political conflict is irrational, like music!

In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche proclaimed: “Music is the true idea of ​​the world, drama is only a reflection of this idea . ” In Alexandrov’s anthem, the liberal’s ear instinctively rejects precisely a certain idea, the musical idea of ​​our world (however, only one of the possible ones). At first he hates her, only then does he argue. He argues as best he can - mostly by habitually piling up worn-out words. But even if it is talented, the result is still the same: the musical question is turned into a dramatic one (if you like, dramatized). And the drama, gentlemen, is truly “just a reflection”... It is really for the best that the Duma did not give a platform to your speeches. “No need to dramatize”... To express your hatred, write music.

And good luck to you, gentlemen!