„Solvumiseks pole põhjust.“ Vaimne õhustik Eesti NSV Heliloojate Liidu töökoosolekutel 1970. aastatel / “No Reason to Be Offended”: The Atmosphere at Working Meetings of the Estonian SSR Composers’ Union in the 1970s

Abstract

Teesid: Eesti NSV Heliloojate Liidus toimusid alates 1944. aasta sügisest kuni okupatsiooniaja lõpuni regulaarselt iganädalased töökoosolekud. Liidu kõigile liikmetele ja huvilistele avatud kohtumiste põhitegevuseks oli uue eesti heliloomingu ühine läbikuulamine ning teostele tagasiside andmine, võimu poliitiliseks eesmärgiks aga ideoloogiline kontroll uue heliloomingu üle. Artikkel keskendub koosolekute vaimsele õhustikule 1970. aastatel, kirjeldades nende vastuolulist rolli heliloojate töö- ja loomingualase heaolu kujundamisel tol perioodil. Käsitluse peamiseks uurimismaterjaliks olid töökoosolekute protokolliraamatud, mille analüüsimisel tugineti kvalitatiivse tekstianalüüsi printsiipidele.

As in other socialist republics, the activities of Estonian composers and musicologists during the Soviet era were centralised under and controlled by the Estonian SSR Composers’ Union (CU). The organisation’s functions, activities, and associated member privileges and obligations differed markedly from similarly named unions from before and after the occupation. During the Soviet era membership was essential for pursuing a professional career in composition. Weekly working meetings, held consistently from autumn 1944 until the end of the occupation, shaped generations of composers’ routines. These Tuesday evening meetings at the Composers’ House in Tallinn typically lasted around two hours, were open to all members of the union and interested others, and included the presentation – whether live or recorded – and evaluation of new works. While functioning as a professional forum, these meetings also served as a tool for ideological control.

This article examines the atmosphere at CU meetings in the 1970s, shedding light on the controversial effect they had on composers’ working and creative well-being. The analysis draws on meeting agendas, discussion content, work assessment criteria, the composers' expectations for feedback and critique, ideological rhetoric, and broader social reflections. It uses the principles of qualitative textual analysis to examine the now publicly available meeting minutes, archived at the Theatre and Music Museum.

The analysis adopts Lloyd F. Bitzer’s theory of rhetorical situation (1968), viewing the meetings as rhetorical events shaped by procedural and ideological demands, such as approval for performances and eligibility for payment of royalties. Participants also operated under rhetorical constraints, balancing sensitivity toward the presenting composer with awareness of state ideology and potential mind control. The study also draws on Sally Anne Gross and George Musgrave’s research (2020) on the effect of music industry structures on artists’ mental health. Applied historically, their framework helps identify how institutional formats such as the CU’s weekly meetings affected creative agency and psychological well-being.

The meetings often had an eclectic agenda, combining music listening with political lectures and pedagogical discussion, or sharing travel impressions with accompanying recordings. In 1977 alone, 38 meetings featured 42 of the 56 CU composers of various generations, encompassing a wide stylistic range from solo pieces to large-scale works, children’s music, educational material, dodecaphonic compositions, and popular estrada. Rarely did the programs follow a unified genre.

By the 1970s, although the meetings’ ideological function remained in place, changes in the political climate and the rise of a new generation of composers had altered both the meetings’ atmosphere of control and the rhetoric of discussion. Despite the declining relevance of earlier rules requiring the ideological evaluation of works within the framework of socialist realism, as well as their approval prior to public performance, the meetings persisted, reflecting the era’s contradictions. It appears that composers themselves sensed the artificiality of the meetings, which by then continued mainly for formal reasons related to royalty payments. This was evident in occasional (ironic) reflections during speeches on the purpose and relevance of the meetings, especially regarding works already performed in concert or commissioned pieces whose royalties were not procedurally tied to the meetings.

Ideological rhetoric manifested infrequently, and predominantly in conjunction with themed compositions, typically composed for state holidays. Nonetheless, these talks proceeded without notable shifts in atmosphere. Although social critique was largely absent from discussions, a few exceptions stood out. Raimo Kangro’s oratorio Credo sparked unusually sharp debate in January 1978. Subtle critical tones were also present in the December 1979 discussion of Veljo Tormis’s Songs of Sadness, composed before conductor Neeme Järvi’s emigration. However, these moments remained isolated. The expulsion of composers Arvo Pärt and Kuldar Sink from the CU in 1979, part of wider tension between artists and the regime, for example, was not reflected in meeting discourse.

One frequent criticism by speakers was the inadequacy of evaluating works after only a single, often unpolished, performance. Consequently, comments about form, structure, or innovation had minimal influence on the overall direction of the meetings. Discussions tended to focus instead on whether a piece suited concert programming or education. These practical considerations drew consensus more easily. Genre classification, which affected royalty payments and had stylistic implications, prompted more frequent disputes.

Despite the ideological and procedural formalities, protocols suggest that meetings in the 1970s generally took place in a relaxed atmosphere and visible tension was rare. One notable exception was the reaction to and by a young Mati Kuulberg’s work, though such instances were unusual. A pivotal figure in cultivating this collegial atmosphere was the composer Jaan Rääts, who assumed the role of chairman of the Union's board in 1974. His credo, articulated in a concluding statement during a 1973 discussion, encapsulated his approach: “Everyone should write according to their nature.”

Composer Alo Põldmäe’s retrospective comparison between the working meetings and today’s common format of the creative laboratory appears somewhat idealised in the broader context of the 1970s, however. Even if the atmosphere had allowed for more substantive discussion, the structure and often eclectic repertoire of the meetings hindered it. Final remarks occasionally noted – alongside general thanks – that the work had sparked exchange in ideas. In reality, however, the comments often formed a scattered series of individual views, lacking substantive exchange. Such discussions were instead sought in more private settings, such as the Kuku Club in central Tallinn, a gathering place for artists and cultural figures, as Põldmäe has also recalled.