Svyatoslav Richter: A gloomy page. — Is there something you regret?

Svyatoslav Richter and Nina Dorliak lived together for more than 50 years. And all their lives they addressed each other as “you”. Was it high love, or the great musician’s innate tact and pity did not allow him to leave? However, it is possible that this union was just a screen behind which a completely different love was hiding?

Music as a reason to get acquainted

Today there are two versions of Svyatoslav Richter’s acquaintance with Nina Dorliak. Vera Prokhorova, who calls herself the pianist’s friend and his only close person, writes that Nina’s mother, a teacher at the conservatory, approached the pianist, already quite famous at that time, and asked to make an ensemble with Nina. And already in Tbilisi on tour they had great success, after which Nina decided that Svyatoslav was suitable for her as a life partner.

It can be assumed that there is some slyness in this description. Especially in the moment where Vera Ivanovna says that by the time she met Richter, Nina Dorliak “was singing some hits from the stage. But she never had a special voice.”

You can listen to her silvery voice, preserved on a few audio recordings of that time. And you can find confirmation in the biography of Nina Lvovna herself that before she met Richter in 1943, she quite successfully and repeatedly performed with the famous organist Alexander Fedorovich Gödicke, the founder of the Soviet organ school. Nina Dorliak also gave concerts with the very talented pianist Nina Musinyan, with eminent pianists Abram Dyakov, Maria Grinberg, Boris Abramovich, Konstantin Igumnov and Maria Yudina. While still studying at the conservatory, the singer sang the role of Suzanne in The Marriage of Figaro, after which Georg Sebastian, the famous conductor, invited the singer to perform with him in a chamber program consisting of works by Brahms, Wagner, and Schubert. Moreover, Nina Lvovna taught at the Moscow Conservatory since 1935.

All this happened before meeting and collaborating with Svyatoslav Richter. In this situation, the version voiced by Nina Dorliak herself seems more plausible.

She says that she met Richter during the war, and at first they only said hello when they met, then their acquaintance became closer. And after the meeting at the Philharmonic, he asked permission to hold it. That’s when he invited Nina Lvovna to give a joint concert. He was already very famous, and Nina decided that he was proposing to split the concert into two parts. In the first she will perform herself, and in the second he will play.

But Svyatoslav Teofilovich wanted to accompany Nina Lvovna throughout the concert. This is how their creative tandem began. They began to rehearse together at Nina Lvovna’s house. And gradually the creative tandem grew into a vital duet.

An extraordinary novel

In 1944, Nina Lvovna’s mother, Ksenia Nikolaevna Dorliak, died. The young woman was left alone, with her little nephew Mitya in her arms. And only after recovering from the loss of a loved one, Nina Lvovna resumes rehearsals with Richter.

In 1945, according to Nina Dorliak, Svyatoslav Richter invited her to live together. He moved in with her, honestly warning her that he was a rather complex person and would disappear from time to time, that he needed it.

About the same period, Vera Prokhorova writes that Nina Dorliak suppressed Svyatoslav Richter, she blackmailed him with tears, which he absolutely could not stand. She took all his money, and he was forced to borrow. He hid from her with friends, and she found him.

And against this background, the words of Svyatoslav Richter himself, spoken about Nina Lvovna at the end of his life, in Bruno Monsaingin’s film “Richter, the Unconquered” look very contrasting. The great pianist speaks about Nina Lvovna not only as a singer, he adds the phrase: “She looked like a princess.” Not a queen, tough, domineering, authoritarian. The princess is light, sweet, airy.

Music and life

Over time, Svyatoslav Teofilovich stopped studying with Nina Lvovna, not having time for this. But to this day, recordings of Nina Dorliak have been preserved, where she is accompanied by the great maestro. From these recordings one can judge how harmonious their creative union was. It seems that the voice flows into the sounds of the piano, and the piano suddenly sings with a silvery soprano.

Yuri Borisov in his book “Towards Richter” describes the musician’s associations about his life with Nina Lvovna. The great maestro confessed his love while learning the eighteenth sonata. Then there were “interruptions of feelings” in their lives, when they had a strong quarrel, and he went to sit on a bench. She knew where to find him, but she never followed him. (Svyatoslav Teofilovich himself says this). He returned and walked silently to his room.

And in the morning he was certainly greeted by the aroma of coffee, freshly ironed shirts were waiting for him, and homemade mayonnaise for vinaigrette was on the table. Richter says that this is, of course, everyday life, but everyday life “poeticized” by Nina Lvovna.

“As long as I’m alive, I’ll be with you...”

Svyatoslav Richter. / Photo: www.1tv.ru

In 2015, Inga Karetnikova’s memoirs suddenly talk about the musician’s unconventional orientation. The author and film critic categorically asserts that everyone knew about this, and Nina Lvovna served only as a screen for the authorities.

But what to do with the entire 52 years of marriage between the singer and musician? And numerous friends and admirers of Svyatoslav Richter, who could not help but notice such an unusual passion for that time. Even Vera Prokhorova, refusing to accept the very fact of love between Richter and Dorliac, nowhere mentions his weakness for the male sex.

It seems that the relationship between the great Richter and his wife will excite minds for a long time and evoke a desire to find grains of truth.

The zigzags of life and the mystery of death are no less interesting than the mystery of the relationship between Richter and Dorliak.

We know about the great composer’s many loves not only from the descriptions of his contemporaries, but also from his own diaries and letters. However, there was no big secret about this; Tchaikovsky’s penchant for same-sex relationships was widely discussed.

In 1862, Tchaikovsky, in the company of friends, among whom was his alleged partner, the poet Apukhtin, got into a kind of homosexual scandal in the St. Petersburg restaurant “Shotan”, as a result of which they, in the words of Modest Tchaikovsky, brother of Pyotr Ilyich, “were notorious throughout the city as bumps<гомосексуалистов>" Pyotr Ilyich himself, in a letter to Modest dated August 29, 1878, notes the corresponding hint in a feuilleton about the morals of the conservatory, which appeared in “New Time,” and laments: “My Bugorsky reputation falls on the entire conservatory, and that makes me even more ashamed, even harder.”

In his letters (especially in letters to his brother), the composer is completely frank: “Imagine! The other day I even made a trip to the village to visit Bulatov, whose house is nothing more than a pederast brothel. Not only was I there, but I fell in love like a cat with his coachman!!! So, you are absolutely right when you say in your letter that there is no way to resist your weaknesses, despite any oaths” (to brother Modest, 09.28.1876).

It is curious that when in a letter to his brother (dated January 19, 1877) he confesses his love for the 22-year-old violinist Joseph Kotek, he emphasizes that he does not want to go beyond a purely platonic relationship: “I cannot say that my love was completely clean. When he caresses me with his hand, when he lies with his head bowed on my chest, and I run my hand through his hair and secretly kiss it, when for whole hours I hold his hand in mine and am exhausted in the fight against the urge to fall at his feet and kiss those legs, - passion rages in me with unimaginable force, my voice trembles like a young man’s, and I say some kind of nonsense.

However, I am far from wanting a physical connection. I feel that if this had happened, I would have lost interest in him. I would be disgusted if this wonderful young man stooped to have intercourse with an aged and fat-bellied man. How disgusting that would be and how disgusting it would be to oneself! This is not necessary."

2. Nikolai Gogol, writer

It is difficult to reliably judge Gogol's homosexuality. Being a deeply religious person, even in his letters he never admitted his love for men. At the same time, in letters to friends, Gogol wrote that he had never known female love. When asked by Dr. Tarasenkov during his last illness, Gogol said that he had no connections with women (in his youth he once visited a brothel with friends, but did not enjoy it).

In Italy, the writer had a close friendship with the artist Alexander Ivanov, in whose life there were also no women. Finally, an important emotional event in Gogol’s life was his mutual friendship (or love?) with 23-year-old Joseph Vielgorsky. When Vielgorsky was dying of tuberculosis in 1838, Gogol literally did not leave his bedside. Impressed by these events, Gogol began writing the novel Nights at the Villa (but never finished it). The description of their relationship looks a little more romantic there than it is customary to imagine male friendship.

“I began to fan him with a laurel branch. "Oh, how fresh and good!" - he said. His words were then what they were! What would I give then, no matter what earthly blessings, these despicable, vile, vile blessings! There is no point in talking about them. “You are my angel! Did you miss me?” - “Oh, how I missed you!” - he answered me. I kissed his shoulder. He offered me his cheek. We kissed. He was still shaking my hand. A fleeting, fresh fragment of my youth returned to me, when a young soul is looking for friendship and brotherhood between its young peers and a decidedly youthful friendship, full of sweet, almost infantile little things and vying signs of tender affection; when it is sweet to look eye to eye and when everyone is ready to make donations, often even completely unnecessary ones. And all these feelings are sweet, young, fresh - alas! inhabitants of the irrevocable world - all these feelings returned to me. God! For what?"

3. Marina Tsvetaeva, poetess

Marina Tsvetaeva is often classified as a lesbian, but it is more correct to classify her as a bisexual, since she experienced tender feelings for representatives of both sexes. “To love only women (for a woman) or only men (for a man), obviously excluding the usual opposite - what a horror! But only women (for a man) or only men (for a woman), obviously excluding unusual native ones - what a bore!” – she wrote in 1921. By this time, she had already ended her affair with the poetess and translator Sofia Parnok, which lasted from 1914 to 1916. After the separation, Marina returned to her husband, Sergei Efron.

Tsvetaeva dedicated a series of poems, “Girlfriend,” to Parnok, and her homosexual experiences are largely reflected in her essay “Letter to the Amazon,” written in French. In it, she writes with despair that the inability to have a child “is the only mistake, the only vulnerability, the leafy gap in the perfect unity that is two women who love each other. The impossibility of resisting the temptation of a man. The only weakness that ruins the whole thing. The only vulnerability into which the entire enemy corps rushes. Let it be possible someday to have a child without him, but we will never have a child from her, little you, to love.”

In a letter to Ariadne Berg dated November 17, 1937, Tsvetaeva gives the following interpretation of her unconventional orientation: “Ariadne! My mother wanted a son, Alexander, and I was born, but with the soul (and the head!) of Alexander’s son, that is, doomed to male—let’s be honest—dislike—and female love, because men did not know how to love me—yes, maybe even I ... them".

4. Sergei Diaghilev, entrepreneur

The artist Alexander Benois recalled: “From my friends still remaining in the city, I learned that in our circles and those close to us, truly, one might say, in connection with some kind of general emancipation, quite amazing changes had taken place. And my friends themselves seemed to me to have changed. They had a new, more cheeky cynicism, something even defiant and boastful in it. I was especially amazed that of my friends who belonged to supporters of “same-sex love” now did not hide it at all and even spoke about it with a tinge of some kind of proselytizing propaganda. And not only Seryozha<Дягилев>became an “almost official” homosexual, but besides, it was only now that Valechka was openly pestered<Нувель>and Kostya<Сомов>, and it turned out that it was Valechka who took up such re-education of Kostya. As they approached, new young people appeared, and among them, the eccentric poet Mikhail Kuzmin, surrounded himself with some kind of mystery and some kind of aura of debauchery...”

At the beginning of the 20th century, homosexuality actually became even somewhat fashionable. But Diaghilev’s story begins earlier, back in 1890, when at the age of 18 he came from the provinces to St. Petersburg in the hope of becoming a singer or composer. He stayed at the house of his aunt Anna Filosofova, widely known as a public figure and an outstanding feminist. There he meets her son Dmitry Filosofov, his peer. In 1890, during a joint trip to Italy, Diaghilev and Filosofov became lovers for the next ten years. Together they publish the World of Art magazine. Among the famous participants of the magazine was the poetess and bisexual Zinaida Gippius. Her first essays in the magazine were a description of her journey and were called “On the Shores of the Ionian Sea.”

One chapter recounted her time at a gay settlement in Taormina, Sicily, created by male nude photographer Baron Wilhelm von Gloeden. Gippius, also having feelings for Filosofov, achieved his break with Diaghilev. In 1908, Diaghilev met the man who became his next great love, Vaslav Nijinsky, who at that time was supported by a wealthy aristocrat, Prince Pavel Lvov. Over the five years of their relationship, Diaghilev developed activities through which the little-known young dancer became a worldwide celebrity. But then, being separated from Diaghilev, during a sea voyage to South America, Nijinsky unexpectedly proposed to a young Hungarian woman whom he barely knew.

So suddenly for Diaghilev Nijinsky’s bisexuality, hidden during his relationship with him, appeared. Diaghilev felt abandoned when he learned of Nijinsky's marriage. This was a repeat of the incident with Filosofov, when a woman once again crossed his path and stole his lover. After some time, having found a new lover in the person of Leonid Massine, Diaghilev was ready to forgive Nijinsky and invited him to collaborate further. But Nijinsky completely entrusted his career to his wife, and she, having no sympathy for Diaghilev, ensured that their collaboration did not resume.

5. Sergei Eisenstein, director

Eisenstein is often classified as homosexual on the basis that he did not have affairs with women and left behind many drawings on a homosexual theme in the archive. This is, however, a simplified view. Sergei Eisenstein, who did not experience sexual attraction to either women or men, for a long time tried to study his orientation himself. At the end of the twenties, he went on a business trip to Western Europe and America to become familiar with sound film technology.

The first stage of his trip is Berlin. He opens nightclubs, powdered young men, transvestites. This sight, according to his close friend Marie Seton, revived his fears about his nature. “Why didn’t he want to love a woman? Why were you afraid of sexual intercourse? Why was he afraid that communicating with a woman would deprive him of his creative power? Where does this obsession with powerlessness come from? He goes to the Institute of Sexology, founded by Magnus Hirschfeld, and spends many hours there studying the phenomenon of homosexuality.

Marie Seton writes that Eisenstein told her later: “Observations led me to the conclusion that homosexuality is in all respects a regression, a return to a past state of cell division and conception. This is a dead end. Many people say that I am a homosexual. I never was, and I would tell you if it were true. I have never experienced such a desire, even in relation to Grisha, despite the fact that I have some bisexual tendency, like Balzac and Zola, in the intellectual field.”

6. Rudolf Nureyev, dancer

In the USSR, homosexual relations were criminalized, this was one of the reasons why the famous dancer chose not to return from tour in the summer of 1961. When he made this final decision at Le Bourget airport, he had sharp scissors in his pocket. “If they don’t let me off this plane,” he warned French choreographer Pierre Dakota, “I’ll kill myself right here.”

In the 60s, Nureyev experienced a whirlwind romance with the famous Danish dancer and choreographer Erik Brun. In the late sixties and early seventies, his life partner was an American, a physics teacher at Georgia Tech, Wallace Potts. The men lived together for seven years at Nureyev's country estate near London. Nureyev met his third and last love, Tracy, in 1976. Tracy, a student at the School of American Ballet, was one of a dozen aspiring dancers performing the roles of lackeys in the service of Mr. Nureyev. And, by Tracy’s own admission, he remained Nureyev’s lackey for the next thirteen years. Nureyev died in 1993 from AIDS, which he fought for the last 13 years of his life.

7. Naum Shtarkman, pianist

The brilliant pianist, professor at the Moscow Conservatory and father of the no less outstanding pianist of our time, Alexander Shtarkman, was practically banned for a long time. His concert (and for some time also teaching) activities in the USSR were effectively put to rest. At the end of the 50s he was convicted under Art. 121 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (homosexuality). In 1969, Shtarkman was allowed to work on a freelance basis at the Gnessin Music School; Shtarkman returned to full-time concert activity on the best world and domestic stages only in the 80s.

It must be said that during the last year of study at the conservatory, Shtarkman consulted with another brilliant pianist - Svyatoslav Richter. According to Danish professor Karl Aage Rasmussen, author of the book “Svyatoslav Richter: Pianist,” Richter’s marriage to singer Nina Dorleak was ostentatious. The biographer is sure that homosexuality was the cause of his constant severe depression.

It is interesting to note that another famous pianist, Vladimir Horowitz, who was born in Kyiv and also had a non-traditional sexual orientation, emigrated to the USA, but he too was forced to live in a fictitious marriage, suffered from depression and even tried to be “treated” with electroshock therapy.

link

05/20/2002, "Andrey Gavrilov: "Spit on everything and go to the Papuans"

Vadim Zhuravlev

In Moscow, as part of the Chereshnevy Les music festival, organized by the Krauterconcert agency, a solo concert was held by the famous pianist Andrei Gavrilov. World fame came to him in 1974: after winning the Tchaikovsky Competition, Gavrilov replaced Svyatoslav Richter at a concert in Salzburg. Several years ago, Gavrilov violated all the canons of a star’s life, left the world of music and lived for two years among the natives of Oceania. Last year he resumed his concert activities. A GAZETA correspondent met with Andrei Gavrilov.

- You haven’t been to Moscow for many years and suddenly you’ve become more frequent...

- I was very interested in looking at the new Moscow - and I came. He was terribly jittery. I had a lot of troubles in Russia during those times, and I had to leave the country. I left in a very deplorable state, practically after two attempts on my life. In 1985, the daughter of an influential member of the Politburo took me to London, sacrificing herself and her father. I had vegetative-vascular dystonia, almost epilepsy. Three more months in Russia and I would have died. British intelligence kept me in a save house, protecting me from assassination attempts. In the first years I didn’t even speak Russian, I couldn’t listen to Russian speech. I had a Russian wife, but we spoke English at home. Over time, this began to become a thing of the past, although I had nightmares for ten to fifteen years. When I met Baryshnikov for the first time in 1985, I asked him: “Do you remember your Russian adventures?” He replied: “It’s in my blood.” He had just begun filming the film "White Nights", where he filmed his nightmare. For ten years he dreamed that his plane unexpectedly landed in Russia. The plane crashes, he loses consciousness and wakes up in the hospital and the KGB major tells him: “Welcome home, Nikolay.” Then Vladimir Ashkenazi told me about the same thing, and for him it was all alive.

- So now Russia does not give rise to nightmares?

“On my first return, I was in a state of constant terror. There were many threads left in my soul that I had forgotten to think about, but they immediately woke up and began to jingle as soon as I got off the plane. I was struck by the liberation from oppression. I went out onto New Arbat, and I was amazed by the numerous cafes and the masses of smiling people in them. It's not noticeable to you because you live here. For me it was a striking contrast: in the poses, in the conversations, in the gait of the young and the old. I sat for six hours in a cafe on the street, drinking coffee and looking at everyone and thinking: am I dreaming? For fifteen years I had no thoughts about Russia, but now I am increasingly finding a spiritual connection. I really want to communicate with the new generation, with the new public. I thought that all this had died a long time ago, but it turned out that not. It just sat deep. Oh, I really want to speak Russian!

- You are actively fighting the commercialization of the classical music market. Does it make sense to break decades-old traditions?

- I ask myself this question every day. I get up in the morning, drink coffee and think: is it worth continuing all this or spit on everything and go to the Papuans with whom I lived for two years. I had this too. Everything you say is true. And in fact, all this is even dirtier, more vulgar and more cynical. This is a mafia-like, corrupt market where decayed artistic agencies reign. They just sell meat in different packaging. Nobody raises their head against this, because the income is great. All this led to the fact that in 1994 I broke with this whole world. I felt like I was getting dumber. 120 concerts a season (you get an income of 1.5-2 million dollars a year), 3-4 records a year... All this is usual - musicians love money. It's like cockroach racing. Then the cockroach dies, newspapers come out with the headlines “Another one burned down at work” - and that’s where it all ends.

I got scared of this and started playing poorly, it was very cold. Every year I played quieter and quieter. There was no point in wasting oneself - the public continued to be satisfied. You just had to play quietly and cleanly and smile at everyone. It is impossible to break this, it is a utopia. But you have to find some way of existence when you can respect yourself, your art, and the public. But this is a very difficult life - you have to forget about commercial success. By digging up the hatchet of war with these gentlemen, you find yourself in a rather flamboyant opposition, which is not at all welcomed in this world and makes it want to nullify such an oppositionist. The market is in the hands of about four main agencies. They have tens of thousands of artists in their hands, they had influence on musicians like Bernstein, now they have influence on Abbado - these are all the guys from their circle. From the outside it seems that these individuals are independent, but they are all in the hands of agencies, whether they want it or not, whether they admit it or not. Even such figures, if desired, can be removed from this carousel, since the leading orchestral groups are still involved here and there is a lot of squabbling going on there. A rough parallel can be drawn with the Politburo and with the expectation of the death of the next leader. So many people were waiting for Karajan's death, since the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra was being released. I will never forget how Herbert’s body lay in Salzburg, and on the stage the mourning things were conducted by Muti, Abbado... It was reminiscent of the funeral scene from Coppola’s “The Godfather”: a coffin with little Karajan, and around him Don Abbado, Don Muti. The chief of the Berlin Philharmonic is the music director of the land.

- Aren’t you afraid that you will be accused of the fact that your struggle is part of a big PR company?

- Not at all: I left the world of music for six years, and no one does this. I was left completely without money, but these gentlemen were used to living well. I'm big on material possessions, and this was pretty painful. In my park there were three Mercedes, a large villa with a swimming pool. It was necessary to decide rather quickly and say “aufiderzein” to all this forever. There were struggles, I don’t want to show off, it was difficult in the first year.

- And to live with the Papuans you need money.

- No, there are only fruits and fish. But I did not prepare this departure, it was spontaneous. I had to pay huge penalties. In four years I was completely bankrupt, and many wanted to make the situation worse: you’ll dance with us!

- Then isn’t your return to the world of music a betrayal of your own ideals?

- I am returning on other grounds. I don't go to any meetings with these people. And I will not, I will never let anyone from this block approach me. I'm looking for private people, I want to record only on video. This happens with great pain, but with great enthusiasm and a feeling of happiness I gather around me a team of young people, rebels, music critics, composers, Germans, English. Behind me comes a legion of fresh forces with empty wallets and filled hearts.

- But there were examples of people who resisted the market. Your friend Svyatoslav Richter, for example. But then he passed away, and it turned out that little human could be said about him, only clichés were heard everywhere: “a great musician”, “a great artist”...

- For Richter, it was a game of image, a developed subtle policy, drilled by going through Stalin’s time, walking for twenty-five years on the verge of execution. This man has completely reforged himself and turned into a positive hero. To understand what Richter was like, we must say what literary heroes he liked: “Henry IV” by Pirandello, who portrays himself as crazy all his life and in the end stabs him with a sword, “The Visit of the Old Lady” by Dürrenmath. All his favorite heroes are avengers. In 1961, he went to Paris and went on a spree in gay saunas in such a way that people there still remember it. This is a very complex character, about which the broad masses here still know nothing. If you think that the time is ripe to talk about Glory seriously and freely, then no one except me will say this. Many of the guys who surrounded him were too small. Others know, but won't tell. Yuri Bashmet knows something about him, Natasha Gutman knows something about him. But these are people who will never say everything, especially since he was never really open with them.

I think it’s time for me to talk about him, and it won’t be a disservice to him. He always suffered from this himself. This comes from his childhood, spent with his stepfather Kondratyev, who lay there for twenty-two years and feigned bone tuberculosis while being a spy. Slava talked to him at night and pulled him out of the noose twice. Slava always liked to wear masks. He had so many masks, and he could have worked as the most wonderful intelligence officer. This had a tragic impact on both his music and his passing. But this requires a separate discussion - it is too reminiscent of the great Shakespearean story.

- Now promotion decides everything. Almost every review abroad writes about Gergiev: a real Russian conductor, with Russian melancholy and Russian lyricism. Although Gergiev does not have precisely these qualities...

- Any monkey is taken, it is given a label, an image, and promotion goes on for two years. Two years later, everyone knows this person and public opinion has already been formed below. At the top, this process will continue for seven to nine years to remove the fat. In the case of the pianist Ivo Pogrelich, this lasted twenty years, although this man is without a king in his head, a fool, promoted on my bones, because he got my American tour in 1980, to which I was not allowed. And then my agent invited all the movie stars to a concert in Hollywood, and then there were photographs everywhere: “Ivo gives autographs to Barbra Streisend”, “Ivo gives an autograph to Marlon Brando”...

These bubbles hold up really well.

I know this from myself, before I left I started playing like a pig, but it was still a success. I played like a bastard out of protest - cold, quiet, dry and with a nasty attitude. And many people play like this for the rest of their lives. The Russian niche has become free, Svetlanov has aged. Who to bet on - Gergiev. If there were a lame dwarf at the Mariinsky Theater, it would be even better. This has nothing to do with music. There is a Russian niche: this one waves, this one dances, and this one with a balalaika. And here we have a serious Italian sitting at the piano: first Michelangeli, now Pollini. Now they will look for a cretinoid Italian to replace him: there is a niche - we need to fill it.

- There are no authorities or rules of the game for you. Where does this inner confidence in one’s own rightness come from?

- This is a whole complex. I can’t say that I believe in myself the way an artist should believe in himself. I have a lot of experience and great knowledge. Thanks to a happy coincidence, I have great opportunities for comparisons. I met such greats, I had such standards - Pasolini, Visconti, Guttuso, Picasso, Slava Richter, Klaus Kinski... These are all the people in whose circle I found myself. Partly thanks to Richter, partly due to “miracle” circumstances. I was a kid, and they were all sixty or seventy, but I saw these standards. And I consider myself entitled to draw a parallel that is not in favor of many living today. I’m not saying anything, I’m just talking frankly about what has been hurting and bleeding for many years.

They are written by music critics, cultural experts, colleagues, friends and acquaintances, of whom, although Richter was a reserved person, suddenly there were many. Moreover, any details of his biography became the topic of gossip and gossip. It seems that in Richter's case there are no boundaries at all. There is everything here - both elevation to sainthood and entry into the kingdom of the devil.

The summit is surrounded

I don’t take on the role of an expert and arbiter, but I also have something to remember. For ten years I knew Richter’s wife Nina Lvovna Dorliak, a chamber singer, vocal professor, I visited their house, and met Svyatoslav Teofilovich. But there was always a distance in my relationship with him. Therefore, I was surprised by the publication of the authoritative musicologist Georgy Gordon, in which he writes: “Let’s remember the names of some people included in Richter’s circle: Milstein, Zolotov, Goldin.”

A remarkable expert in the theory and history of musical performance, Yakov Milstein, really communicated a lot with Richter. Andrei Zolotov, a music critic, went on tour with Richter. Among the writers close to Richter were Chemberdzhi, Borisov, Delson, Tsypin, Rabinovich. And, of course, musicians: Kagan, Gutman, Gavrilov, Viardot, Bashmet, Berlinsky. He was friends with Irina Aleksandrovna Antonova, director of the Pushkin Museum, with whom he organized the famous “December Evenings” festival. He was surrounded by artists, actors, and writers.

I never missed Richter’s concerts and dreamed of meeting him. I have no musical education, but while still living in the Soviet Union, I visited the Conservatory every evening. The world of music seemed to be the pinnacle of the universe. And the top of the peaks is Richter.

I didn’t want to ask my friends to introduce me and found another way. Having met Nina Lvovna at the conservatory, he showed her several of his articles and said that he would like to write about Richter, but not a review, because I am not a critic. Nina Lvovna considered this my advantage and soon invited me home. I had long conversations with her, but with Richter it was difficult to find a common topic. I didn’t dare talk about music; philosophy seemed more suitable, but among my friends at home was Valentin Asmus, a famous expert on the history of philosophy, so, for example, talking about Hegel and Kant was excluded.

Especially for meetings with Richter, I went to Leninka to read Theodor Adorno, but Richter did not react to the quote “After Auschwitz there can be no poetry,” and when I said that Adorno considered Beethoven’s music totalitarian, he left the room. I don’t know who he was more dissatisfied with - me or the German philosopher.

Why was a genius expelled?

I recently read in the memoirs of a person close to Richter: “Slava hated everything connected with theorizing on musical topics; he could even alienate and forever lose some good and interesting person if he began to theorize.” Much later I learned that Richter was expelled from the conservatory because he did not want to study social subjects. Neuhaus had to fight for a long time with the party committee in order for Richter to be reinstated. The department of Macrisism-Leninism had professors who understood who Richter was, and all that was required of him was to sometimes come to class and bring his record book to the exam. But he did not agree to such a small compromise.

I published a long article in “Problems of Philosophy”, “Musician of the Century,” the first about a classical music performer in a major academic journal. Nina Lvovna read the manuscript and said nothing, but I already knew that this meant approval. I brought the magazine to her house and asked her to call her after reading it. Nina Lvovna didn’t call; when I met her at the conservatory, I asked about her impressions. - “Oh, we’re so busy, we haven’t read it yet.” At this time, Natalya Gutman, a cellist and close friend of the house, came up: “We all gathered and read the article out loud, wonderful.” Not everyone liked it. A popular violinist told me when he met me at the conservatory: “No one has done as much harm to music as Richter.” Only today do I understand the meaning of what was said - during the life of Richter and the titans of his time, pop stars from the classics knew their place.

I published “Cosmic and Terrestrial”, about Richter, in the popular publishing house “Znanie”. Quotes from the classics and praise of Soviet culture were inevitable here. Nina Lvovna said: “Everything that Richter did was not thanks to, but in spite of.” This was the only time she said anything about politics; in the Richter house this topic was considered indecent.

Look into the abyss

In Richter’s time, the culmination of the cultural life of Moscow were the “December Evenings”. A high staircase leads to the museum hall. At the top, Richter stands surrounded, adjusting paintings on the wall that illustrate the theme of the concert. He saw me and said very loudly so that everyone could hear: “This is the philosopher Goldin. He claims that Richter has a philosophy. I protest! Richter has no philosophy, only music.”

The people around me are smiling, but I’m ready to fall through the ground. Philosophers are Aristotle and Hegel, a doctoral dissertation and a professor's diploma do not make me a philosopher. After this episode, I continued to go to concerts, but I no longer spoke to Richter. Do not prove that the talent of a performer is determined primarily by the depth of philosophical interpretation.

In every publication about Richter’s life, much attention is paid to his relationship with Nina Dorliak, and recently more and more to what happened outside of this relationship. Gay communities willingly support their fight for rights with great names. And then there was an avalanche of publications about Richter’s sex life. Inga Karetnikova writes in her memoirs that the marriage was fictitious; this statement is also cited by Wikipedia. Who knows today, in the era of liberalism without shores, the only correct definition of marriage?!

I think that Richter and Dorliak had an ideal marriage - a union of people who understand each other perfectly, connected spiritually, creatively, professionally. Nina Lvovna was a secretary, PR manager, confidant, psychotherapist, and housekeeper, freeing her from distracting worries. The closest analogy to this union is Vladimir and Vera Nabokov. It is the dream of any creative person to have such a life friend.

Andrei Gavrilov’s book “Teapot, Fira and Andrei” became a sensation. Fira is Richter, he was called that in a narrow circle at the suggestion of Rostropovich. Andrei, a pianist of unique talent, spent many years fighting the KGB and Soviet cultural guardians. I understood the greatness of Tchaikovsky's First Concerto only when Gavrilov performed it. His Chopin is a true revelation, recognizable among a thousand interpretations. We knew each other a little, more with his mother, a musician, who shared with her son all the complexities of his creative and personal destiny. It seems that I was one of the first to write about him in Literature after he was excommunicated from the Soviet stage. During our television recording, a conflict arose (Andrey was right), we never met again.

Despite the age difference, Richter did not have such close spiritual relationships with anyone as he did with Andrei. Since we cannot avoid this topic, there was no sexual relationship between them, there is no doubt in Gavrilov’s testimony. His confession knows no boundaries or fear.

He made me look beyond good and evil - and be horrified. Those who idolize Richter will finish reading the book without letting it go, but will not change their attitude. But it would be better if I didn’t come across her. As the Americans say, “more than I would like to know.” Dmitry Bykov says that “this is a story about the terrible underside of beauty - or, if you like, about the price to pay for talent and fame.” If, having recovered from the shock, you re-read what concerns Richter the musician, then there is a lot of important things that others have not said.

“Gold remains on your hands”

“The music of Glory,” writes Gavrilov, “despite his technical skill, is tortured, prison, Soviet music.” I won't argue, I'll try to understand. I think, if you ignore the negative connotation, Andrei is referring to what Adorno called totalitarianism in music - its absolute, inescapable persuasiveness. Richter does not have the doubts, uncertainty, and confusion in the face of contradictions in man and in the world that are so dear to liberalism and postmodernism. It can be admitted that Richter does not invite dialogue - submission to him is unconditional. He knows and we believe him. You have to trust at least someone! There is perhaps more darkness than light in his music, but isn't that true in the world?

Here’s another from Gavrilov: “He hated everything that the crowd loved, but he did everything possible and impossible to become an idol for the dull.” Having clarified that Richter was an idol for the cultural elite, let us take what Gavrilov said not as a reproach, but as a merit. Like Pushkin and Tchaikovsky, Richter became an idol for everyone. None of the current stars have such universal recognition. When reading this confession, one must not miss the author’s testimony: “There is not a day when I don’t think about him. He is present at every concert I have.” Curse or blessing?!

For many years, great musicians seemed to me the most interesting people; I measured their talent against the scale and dignity of their personality, and I was proud of their communication. The relationship did not stand the test of time. Today this makes it very difficult to listen to former acquaintances in concerts, even in recordings. The chaos of revelations from the private lives of celestials does not add anything good. They once said: “When destroying monuments, preserve the pedestals.” But now all foundations are crumbling.

Listening, reading, seeing the creations of geniuses - this alone is an inalienable property. There is no need to get closer if it is not fate, but an emotional impulse. “Don’t touch the monuments, the gilding remains on your hands,” said Flaubert. Communication will not add anything and, very possibly, will prevent you from seeing the main thing.

Music as a reason to get acquainted

Svyatoslav Richter.

Vera Prokhorova.

Nina Dorliak.

All this happened before meeting and collaborating with Svyatoslav Richter. In this situation, the version voiced by Nina Dorliak herself seems more plausible.

She says that she met Richter during the war, and at first they only said hello when they met, then their acquaintance became closer. And after the meeting at the Philharmonic, he asked permission to hold it. That’s when he invited Nina Lvovna to give a joint concert. He was already very famous, and Nina decided that he was proposing to split the concert into two parts. In the first she will perform herself, and in the second he will play.

Svyatoslav Richter accompanies Nina Dorliak.

An extraordinary novel

Svyatoslav Richter and Nina Dorliak.

They worked on Prokofiev's music. At some point, “The Ugly Duckling” touched Nina Lvovna’s heart so much that she burst into tears right at the piano. And tearing her hands away from her face, she saw tears in Svyatoslav Teofilovich’s eyes. They empathized together with both music and loss.

In 1945, according to Nina Dorliak, Svyatoslav Richter invited her to live together. He moved in with her, honestly warning her that he was a rather complex person and would disappear from time to time, that he needed it.

Svyatoslav Richter and Nina Dorliak.

Nina Dorliak.

Music and life

Svyatoslav Richter.

S. Richter, N. Dorliak and A. Copland. Moscow, March 1960

Svyatoslav Richter with Nina Dorliak, mother Anna Pavlovna and her husband.

“As long as I’m alive, I’ll be with you...”

Svyatoslav Richter and Nina Dorliak.

In recent years, when Svyatoslav Teofilovich was overcome by illness, Nina Lvovna did not leave him for a second. She became his “sister of mercy,” as he himself admits in a short message published in Valentina Chemberdzhi’s book “About Richter in His Words.”

Nina Dorliak.

And Nina Dorliak herself survived her husband by only nine months. She was seriously ill after his death, she was sad and did not know what to do with herself without him.

_________________________________