Back ArrowOpus Tour Forward Arrow
The musical compositions of Richard Burdick

Opus 84:

Khrushchev Portrait
 

Khrushchev Portrait for Narrator, English horn, Bass clarinet and two chamber orchestras, opus 84, was written during the Summer of 1994. This work was not a commission nor do I have any orchestra in mind for the performance. It is a work I had wanted to write for quite a while. I purposely waited for the summer off from my Symphony to begin such a large work. I expect the first audio version will be a computer with the three live soloists version.

My main reasons for writing it are 1) the text shows, if honest, Khrushchev's peaceful intentions, his concern for international law and his willingness to comply to it, and his concern for the world. A view of him we don't often get. 2) The text suits my composition style, 3) It was a welcome change not to concern myself with structure, since it is inherent in the text. 3) I haven't written for a large ensemble in quite a while, 5) I feel I finally know all the instruments (except Roto-toms) well. 6) I like the piece Coming Together with a text from a prisoner at Attica Prison by a composer I forget, and I like the piece by John Adams with orchestra accompanying a recording of a late night talk show host. I feel my work is a companion to those. 7) I thought maybe this might do a little for world peace. To emphasis the peaceful and non-offensive reasoning for what Khrushchev had done. Which may be lost in our version of history, since history is usually told from the side of the victors.

Formalistically I am also proud of this work. My notes have been included at the end of the work. As usual I began with a random throw of coins to get two I ching Hexagram. From that I also used the inverse and assigned one pair to each orchestra as symbolic of Khrushchev and Kennedy. The hexagrams then suggest scales with whole steps and half steps. Years ago I assigned fixed tonics to all 64 hexagrams, with somewhat mystical reasoning to which I adhere. From the interrelationship of the common and uncommon tones of the scales the melodies are created. As the work progresses, rhythm patterns based on the rhythm of the text emerge and repetition of words is mirrored in repetition of instrumental sounds and patterns, with key words such as: I, me, we, you, war, Cuba, peace, military man, Mr. President, etc. Rhythmically the ratio 9: 13 is predominant.

During this period I also was involved in reading Dynamic Dissonance in nature and the arts by Louis Danz, which was rather long and difficult with many obscure literary references. Danz's praise of Schonberg did inspire me to work in the twelve tone form. So, in this work, the melodies evolve together into a unified row, which then bifurcates and then breaks down before the recapitulation. The work that followed this The Waltz for orchestra, also a twelve tone work in which I used a chromatic scale as my row is a companion piece for my Khrushchev portrait, The Waltz would be a suitable overture or postlude, with a Mozart horn concerto on the program to balance the weight of my Khrushchev Portrait.
 

Text used in Richard Burdick's composition Khrushchev Portrait, opus 84:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LANGUAGE SERVICES
(TRANSLATION)
LS NO. 46118
T-85/T-94
Russian

(Embossed Seal of the USSR)
Ministry Foreign Affairs

Moscow, October 26,1962

Mr. Ambassador:
I transmit herewith a letter from N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to J. F. Kennedy president of the United States of America.

Respectfully,
[S] A. Gromyko
A. Gromyko
Minister of Foreign Affairs, USSR

Enclosure: Letter for transmittal to J. F. Kennedy,
President of the United States

His Excellency Foy D. Kohler,
Ambassador of the United States of America,
Moscow
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LANGUAGE SERVICES

(TRANSLATION)
LS NO. 46118
T-85/t-94
Russian

[Embossed Seal of the USSR]

Dear Mr. President:
I have received your letter of October 25. From your letter I got the feeling that you have some Understanding of the situation which has developed and a sense of responsibility. I appreciate this.

By now we have already publicly exchanged our assessments of these events around Cuba and each of us has set forth his explanation and his; interpretation of these events. Therefore, I would - think that, evidently, continuing to exchange opinions at such a distance, even in the form of secret letters, would probably not add anything to what one side has already said to the other.

I think you will understand me correctly if you are really concerned for the welfare of the world. Everyone needs peace: both capitalists, if they have not lost their reason, and all the more, communists - people who know how to value not only their own lives but, above all else, the life of nations. We communists are against any wars between states at all, and have been defending the cause of peace ever since we came into the world. We have always regarded war as a calamity, not as a game or a means for achieving particular purposes, much less as a goal in itself. Our goals are clear, and the means of achieving them is work. War is our enemy and a calamity for all nations. This is how we Soviet people, and together with us, other peoples as well, interpret questions of war and peace. I can say this with assurance at least for the peoples of the Socialist countries, as well as for all progressive people who want peace, happiness, and friendship among nations.

His Excellency
John Kennedy
President of the United States of America

I can see, Mr. President that you also are not without a sense of anxiety for the fate of the world, - not without an understanding and correct - assessment of the nature of modern warfare and what war entails. What good would a war do you? You threaten us with war. But you well know that the very least you would get in response would be what - you had given us; you would suffer the same consequences. And that must be clear to us, people invested with authority, trust and responsibility. We must not succumb to light-headedness and petty passions, regardless of whether elections are forthcoming in one country or another. These are all transitory things, but should war indeed break out, it would not be in our power to contain or stop it, for such is the logic of war. 1 have taken part in two wars, and 1 know that war ends only when it has rolled through cities and villages, sowing death and destruction everywhere.

I assure you on behalf of the Soviet Government and the Soviet people that your arguments regarding offensive weapons in Cuba are utterly unfounded. From what you have written me it is obvious that our interpretations on this point are different, or rather that we have different definitions for one type of military means or another. And indeed, the same types of armaments may in actuality have different interpretations.

You are a military man, and I hope you will understand me. Let us take a simple cannon for instance. What kind of a weapon is it, offensive or defensive? A cannon is a defensive weapon if it is set up to defend boundaries or a fortified area. But when artillery is concentrated and supplemented by an appropriate number of troops, then the same cannon will have become an offensive weapon, since they prepare and clear the way for infantry to advance. The same is true for nuclear missile weapons, for any type of type of these weapons.

You are mistaken if you think that any of our armaments in Cuba are offensive. However, let us not argue at this point. Evidently, I shall not be able to convince you. But I tell you: You, Mr. President, are a military man and you must understand: How can you possibly launch an offensive even if you have an enormous number of missiles of various ranges and power on your territory, using these weapons alone? These missiles are a means of annihilation and destruction. But it is impossible to launch an offensive by means of these missiles, even nuclear missiles of 100 megaton yield, because it is only people, troops who can advance. Without people any weapons, whatever their power, cannot be offensive.

How can you, therefore, give this completely wrong interpretation, which you are now giving that some weapons in Cuba are offensive, as you say? All weapons there, and I assure you of this, are of a defensive nature; they are, in Cuba solely for purposes of defense, and we have sent them to Cuba at the request of the Cuban Government. And you say that they are offensive weapons.

But, Mr. President, do you really seriously think that Cuba could launch an offensive upon the United States and that even we, together with Cuba, could advance against you from Cuban territory you really think so? How can that be? We do not understand. Surely, there has not been any such new development in military strategy that would lead one to believe that it is possible to advance that way. And I mean advance, not destroy; for those who destroy are barbarians, people who have lost their sanity.

I hold that you have no grounds to think so. You may regard us with distrust, but you can at any rate rest assured that we are of sound mind and understand perfectly well that if we launch an offensive against you, you will respond in kind. But you too will get in response whatever you throw at us. And I think you understand that too. It is our discussion in Vienna that gives me the right to speak this way.

This indicates that we are sane people, that we understand and assess the situation correctly. How could we, then, allow [ourselves] the wrong actions which you ascribe to us? Only lunatics or suicides, who themselves want to perish and before they die destroy the world, could do this. But we want to live and by no means do we want to destroy your country. We want something quite different: to compete with your country in a peaceful endeavor, We argue with you; we have differences on ideological questions. But our concept of the world is that questions of ideology, as well as economic problems, should be settled by other than military means; they must be solved in peaceful contest, or as this is interpreted in capitalist society, by competition. Our premise has been and remains that peaceful coexistence, of two different sociopolitical systems - a reality of our world is essential, and that it is essential to ensure lasting peace. These are the principles to which we adhere.

You have now declared piratical measures, the kind that were practiced in the Middle Ages when ships passing through international waters were attacked, and you have called this a "quarantine"- around Cuba. Our vessels will probably soon enter the zone patrolled by your Navy. I assure you that the vessels which are now headed for Cuba are carrying the most innocuous peaceful cargoes. Do you really think that all we spend our time on is transporting so-called offensive weapons, atomic and hydrogen bombs? Even though your military people may possibly imagine that these are some special kind of weapons, I assure you that they are the most ordinary kind of peaceful goods.

Therefore, Mr. President, let us show good sense. I assure you that the ships bound for Cuba are carrying no armaments at all. The armaments needed for the defense of Cuba are already there. I do not mean to say that there have been no shipment of armaments at all. No, there were such shipments. But now Cuba has already obtained the necessary weapons for defense.

I do not know whether you can understand me and believe me. But I wish you would believe yourself and agree that one should not give way to one's passions, that one should be master of them. And what direction are events taking now? If you begin stopping vessels it would be piracy, as you yourself know. If we should start doing this to your ship you would be just as indignant as we and the whole world are now indignant. Such actions cannot be interpreted otherwise, because lawlessness cannot be legalized. Were this allowed to happen then there would be no peace; nor would there be peaceful coexistence. Then we would be forced to take the necessary measures of a defensive nature which would protect our interests in accordance with international law. Why do this? What would it all lead to?
Let us normalize relations. We have received an appeal from U Thant, Acting Secretary General of the U. N., containing his proposals. I have already answered him. His proposals are to the effect that our side not ship any armaments to Cuba for a certain period of time while negotiations are being conducted, and we are prepared to enter into such negotiations, and the other side not undertake any piratical actions against vessels navigating on the high seas. I consider these proposals reasonable. This would be a way out of the situation which has evolved that would give nations a chance to breathe easily. You asked what happened, what prompted weapons to be supplied to Cuba? You spoke of this to our Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will tell you frankly, Mr. President, what prompted it.
We were very grieved by the fact, I spoke of this in Vienna, that a landing was effected and an attack made on Cuba, as a result of which many Cubans were killed. You yourself told me then that this had been a mistake. I regarded that explanation with respect. You repeated it to me several times, hinting that not everyone occupying a high position would acknowledge his mistakes as you did. I appreciate such frankness. For my part I told you that we too possess no less courage; we have also acknowledged the mistakes which have been made in the history of our state, and have not only acknowledged them but have sharply condemned them.
While you really are concerned for peace and for the welfare of your people, and this is your duty as President, I as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, am concerned for my people. Furthermore, the preservation of universal peace should be our joint concern, since if war broke out under modern conditions, it would not be just a war between the Soviet Union and the United States, which actually have no contentions between them, but a world-wide war; cruel and destructive.
Why have we undertaken to render such military and economic aid to Cuba? The answer is: we have done so only out of humanitarian considerations. At one time our people accomplished its own revolution, when Russia was still a backward country. Then we were attacked. We were the target of attack by many countries. The United States took part in that affair. This has been documented by the participants in aggression against our country. An entire book has been written on this by General Graves, who commanded the American Expeditionary Force at that time. Graves entitled it American Adventure in Siberia.

We know how difficult it is to accomplish a revolution and how difficult it is to rebuild a country on new principles. We sincerely sympathize with Cuba and the Cuban people. But we do not interfere in questions of internal organization; we are not interfering in their affairs. The Soviet Union wants to help the Cubans build their life, as they themselves desire, so that others would leave them alone.

You said once that the United States is not preparing an invasion. But you have also declared that you sympathize with the Cuban counterrevolutionary emigrants, support them, and will help them in carrying out their plans against the present government of Cuba. Nor is it any secret to anyone that the constant threat of armed attack and aggression has hung and continues to hang over Cuba. It is only this that has prompted us to respond to the request of the Cuban Government to extend it our aid in strengthening the defense capability of that country.

If the President and Government of the United States would give their assurances that the United States would itself not take part in an attack upon Cuba and would restrain others from such action; if you recall, your Navy, this would immediately change everything. I do not speak for Fidel Castro, but I think that he and the Government of Cuba would, probably, announce a demobilization and would call upon the people to commence peaceful work. Then the question of armaments would also be obviated, because when there is no threat, armaments are only a burden for any people. This would also change the approach to the question of destroying not only the armaments which you call offensive, but of every other kind of armament.

I have spoken on behalf of the Soviet Government at the United Nations and introduced a proposal to disband all armies and to destroy all weapons. How then can I stake my claims on these weapons now?

Armaments bring only disasters. Accumulating them damages the economy, and putting them to use would destroy people on both sides. Therefore, only a madman can believe that armaments are the principal means in the life of society. No, they are a forced waste of human energy, spent, moreover, on the destruction of man himself. If people do not display wisdom, they will eventually reach the point where they will clash, like blind moles, and then mutual annihilation will commence. Let us therefore display statesmanlike wisdom. I propose: we, for our part, will declare that our ships bound for Cuba are not carrying any armaments. You will declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its troops and will not support any other forces which might intend to invade Cuba.

Then the necessity for the presence of our military specialists in Cuba will be obviated.

Mr. President, I appeal to you to weigh carefully what the aggressive, piratical actions which you have announced the United States intends to carry out in international waters would lead to. You yourself know that a sensible person simply cannot agree to this, cannot recognize your right to such action.

If you have done this as the first step towards unleashing war, well then, evidently nothing remains for us to do but to accept this challenge of yours. If you have not lost command of yourself and realize clearly what this could lead to, then, Mr. President, you and I should not now pull on the end. of the rope in which you have tied a knot of war, because the harder you and I pull, the tighter the knot will become. And a time may come when this knot is tied so tight that the person who tied it is no longer capable of untying it, and then the knot will have to be cut. What that would mean I need not explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly what dread forces our two countries possess. Therefore, if there is no intention of tightening this knot, thereby dooming the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, let us not only relax the forces straining on the ends of the rope, let us take measures for untying this knot. We are agreeable to this.

We welcome all forces which take the position of peace. Therefore, I both expressed gratitude to Mr. Bertrand Russell, who shows alarm and concern for the fate of the world, and readily responded to the appeal of the Acting Secretary General of the U. N. U Thant. These, Mr. President, are my thoughts, which, if you should agree with them, could put an end to the tense situation which is disturbing all peoples.

These thoughts are governed by a sincere desire b alleviate the situation and remove the threat of war.
Respectfully,
N. Khrushchev

October 26, 1962