From Karetnikova’s memoirs: Everyone knew that Richter was homosexual, but he and Dorliac were married. To the authorities, she was his wife. Pianist Svyatoslav Richter and opera diva Nina Dorliak: High love or a convenient screen

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 damage 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.

In our country, everything was done quietly, and it is not difficult to understand why. As for my father, no one has yet dared to describe everything as it was. No one said a word about his execution by the Soviet authorities in 1941, before the Germans arrived in Odessa. I learned the truth only twenty years later, because everything happened at the beginning of the war. The last time I was in Odessa was a few weeks before. I lived in Moscow, deprived of any connection with my parents. This is the darkest page of my biography... The darkest!

In the early 30s, while still a young man in Odessa, I took composition and theory lessons from a teacher so boring that he discouraged me from composing music. He was a very learned man, having received higher education in three fields: law, geology and music, and studied with Taneyev in St. Petersburg. Of course, he was not completely mediocre, but I couldn’t stand him, and as soon as he spoke, I began to feel irresistibly sleepy. Sergei Kondratyev - that’s what his name was then - played a sinister role in my life. I'll tell you how this happened and why.

In a sense, I myself was to blame for everything. I contacted Kondratyev through a certain Boris Dmitrievich Tyuneev, a fairly well-known musicologist in Odessa. He was a charming old man, educated, inquisitive, but with a crazy streak. With his beard he somewhat resembled Ivan the Terrible. His face constantly twitched due to the misadventures he had experienced during the revolution, the fear that relentlessly tormented him after he was accused of espionage.

So, this same Tyuneev once brought me to Kondratiev and advised me to take lessons from him. Kondratiev taught composition. Among his students there was even a very gifted composer, Greek by birth, Vova Femelidi, creator of the ballet “Carmagnola” with quite decent music, much better, in any case, than the music of other composers of those years. There were passages in it that Prokofiev himself would not be ashamed of. And now I still keep in my memory the full score of this ballet, composed under the general supervision of Kondratiev and which became a real event when it was staged in Odessa.

For the second time, Tyuneev and I showed up to Kondratiev, who was always sitting at home, without warning. The door was closed, the lights were turned off everywhere. When we entered, we found him lying on the floor with his tongue hanging out. I hanged myself. Tyuneev wanted to get out as quickly as possible, but I, at fifteen years old, held him back and raised the neighbors to their feet so that they would help the poor fellow. They pumped him out.

Later, I often connected this incident with the tragedy of Hamlet, because if I had not been there that day, I would not have had to bear responsibility for saving Kondratiev - the cause of so many future misfortunes for my father and for me, and he would have gone to the next world, not having managed to do harm.

He was the son of a high-ranking official under the tsar, came from a German family, and his real name was German. After the revolution he had to go into hiding, and then he changed his last name for the first time. He then fled from Moscow to Odessa in the hope of saving his life. His friend, conductor Nikolai Golovanov (and husband of the most famous Russian singer Nezhdanova) helped him get a fake passport, leave Moscow and managed to get him into the Odessa Conservatory.

Despite the changed surname, Kondratyev clearly did not feel safe. Haunted by fear of arrest, he soon left teaching at the conservatory, content with secret teaching at home. A special aura formed around him; young people flocked in droves to listen to his lectures. Presumably, he was a good teacher, but he had a mania: he talked non-stop. This is probably why I remained taciturn.

Best of the day

He claimed that he was sick with bone tuberculosis, lay in bed for about twenty years and got out of it only with the arrival of the Germans. It was a simulation, a simulation that lasted more than twenty years!

Mom showed him all sorts of attentions, which, naturally, was not a secret to father. When the war began, Kondratiev settled with us. With the approach of German troops, the parents were asked to evacuate, but when everything was ready to leave, the mother suddenly refused to go under the pretext that there was no way to take “him” with her. The father was arrested and shot. This happened in June 1941.

Evil tongues claimed that the reason was an anonymous letter that Kondratyev allegedly sent to get rid of his father. It was, of course, not difficult at that time to concoct a denunciation under one pretext or another. Kondratiev was, of course, a dubious person, regardless of his origin and upbringing, but it is hard to believe that he committed such a heinous act.

I learned about my father's death in 1943, during my first trip to Tbilisi. I was not told exactly how he died. I only learned about his death from a woman whom I remembered from my childhood. She came up to me on the street and started talking. She did not inspire me with sympathy, and I, driven by hidden hostility towards her, said: “Yes, I know,” although I knew nothing. I just didn't want to listen to her. Only a long time later did I find out what really happened. My mother and Kondratiev left the country in 1941 along with the Germans. Thanks to their father’s old connections at the German consulate, they somehow settled in Germany and got married. Kondratiev changed his last name again and became Richter. I never understood how she could let him do this. He told everyone that he was my father’s brother, and later, when I gained some fame in the Soviet Union, but never traveled abroad, he, in his impudence, went so far as to declare himself my father. Naturally, I could not refute this without being in Germany, and everyone believed him. I cannot describe the rage that boiled inside me when, many years later, I heard during a tour in Germany: “We know Bainero father,” “Ihr Vater!” Ihr Vater! After a nineteen-year separation, I saw my mother again in 1960 in America, where she flew with her husband for my debut. The meeting did not make me happy. Later I visited them in Germany, because I hoped to visit Bayreuth with my mother, which I had long dreamed of. Stopping in front of their house, I saw on a board attached to the gate the inscription: “S. Richter." “What does this have to do with me?” - flashed through my head, but then I remembered that his name is Sergei.

Mother changed completely, he bewitched her with his delusional rantings, did not leave her a single step, did not let her get a word in, even when she was with me, he chattered non-stop. Because of his pathological talkativeness, it was impossible to communicate with him. For a farewell dinner in New York, which concluded my first tour of America, all my relatives from the Moskalev side, people who had not the slightest connection to music, gathered. Nevertheless, at dinner he talked non-stop about harmony in Rimsky-Korsakov. This was of absolutely no interest to anyone, but it was completely impossible to stop him. When I visited them again in Germany, shortly before my mother died, she was in the hospital. After I visited her, I needed somewhere to spend the night, and I had to go to them in Schwäbisch Gmünd near Stuttgart. I came to them from Paris and the next day early in the morning I had to return there, because new concerts were coming up. Mom asked him: “Please, Sergei, don’t talk too much. Promise me that in an hour and a half you will let him go to bed.” But he buzzed until six in the morning. I lay on my back, having long since stopped listening, and he mumbled and mumbled. All the same nonsense that I have heard thousands of times: music, events, boo-boo-boo, zhu-zhu-zhu... Just like he was a maniac, he still is!..

But the worst thing happened at my solo concert in Vienna. On the eve of the concert, I came from Italy after performing at the Maggio Fiorentino festival and was in bad shape. And so he showed up to me on the day of the concert: “My wife is dying!” Tell me that! Just like that, suddenly!

I had never performed in Vienna before and failed miserably. The critics did not miss the opportunity: “Abschied von der Legende” (“End of the Legend”).

I really was a terrible player.

Alexander Genis: On air - “Musical Shelf” by Solomon Volkov.

What's on your shelf today, Solomon?

Solomon Volkov: The newest Western monograph about Svyatoslav Richter, which is called “Svyatoslav Richter: pianist”. Its author is Danish professor Karl Aage Rasmussen, and it has just been published in America. And I must say that, reading this book with great pleasure and interest, I thought how unfortunate it is that nothing like this has yet been published in Russia about Richter, and, perhaps, about no other musician.

Alexander Genis: What do you mean - ""like that""?

Solomon Volkov: The book is called "The Pianist" and it really focuses on musical features, musical interpretations and analysis of what Richter does. But it also sets out extremely clearly and without any significant omissions Richter’s biography, in which there were many all sorts of dramatic moments. Until now, nothing similar to this biography has appeared, and for some reason very important and significant moments of Richter’s life are passed over in silence.

Alexander Genis: What do you have in mind?

Solomon Volkov: He had a very dramatic life. Firstly, his father was shot at the very beginning of the war as a German spy. Further, the mother went with the German troops to Germany, with a man who was her lover during her father’s life, also a musician, and lived there all her life. And Richter's relationship with her and with her new husband was incredibly difficult and traumatic. There is complete silence about this in Soviet literature and even in later publications about Richter. Finally, a question related to Richter’s homosexual orientation. This orientation was by no means a secret - even in the Soviet Union, in musical circles, everyone knew about it. But, again, no one even mentions this, as if it has nothing to do with the biography.

Alexander Genis: What do you think has to do with music? Is this important to know?

Solomon Volkov: How important it is to know about the sexual side of a person’s life if it is so important in life! This is the same as saying that a person’s sexual biography is not important for a person’s life. We can't say such nonsense. It is clear that a person’s sexual world constitutes a huge part of his being and, inevitably, this side is reflected in everything - in his biography, in his creativity, and even more so when we talk about non-traditional orientation, and even more so when this was the case in the Soviet Union . Yet it was, as it were, underground, it created completely special conditions of existence for Richter, it created a completely special system of his social connections, his relationships with the authorities, with the state, with society. Everything changed completely because of this. For example, from this biography I first learned that his famous ostentatious marriage with Nina Dorleak, a singer, which lasted for many years, everyone believed that they were husband and wife, but it turns out they were never even registered during their lifetime. The marriage of Richter and Dorleac was registered after the death of Richter herself. I must say that from a legal point of view, as described in the book (I judge, again, only from this book, I didn’t know any of this) all this looks extremely amazing.

Alexander Genis: Not to say absurd.

Solomon Volkov: But, again, when there is only this one book, then we draw our knowledge about Richter’s life now from this book, and I can only regret that there is nothing like this in Russia.

Alexander Genis: But we also know about Richter thanks to his music. And what is Richter's main contribution to piano music?

Solomon Volkov: Richter's contribution not only to piano music was enormous. In the Soviet Union, for many years he seemed to be the personification, if you like, of the country’s musical conscience. Richter was such a symbol of purity, detachment from some earthly concerns, from participation in this boring and false socio-political life. It was as if he stood above it all. And symbolic in this regard is his performance of Bach. It very much resonates with Richter’s attitude towards public life in general - he seemed to rise above the surrounding music in his performance of Bach, just as in his everyday life he rose above all this vanity and these squabbles.

Alexander Genis: Solomon, they believe that Richter returned Bach to enormous popularity. And in this respect he is similar to another great pianist who did approximately the same thing in the Western, New World - this is Gould. How does Bach sound differently among these pianists?

Solomon Volkov: You know, compared to Richter, Gould's Bach is populist music, because Gould plays Bach very eccentrically and, in general, assertively. For him, Bach is a very active composer, while for Richter, all Bach’s colors are somewhat faded. And this, as I already said, is extremely detached music, rising above the sea of hustle and bustle. This absolutely cannot be said about Gould's Bach.

Alexander Genis: Despite the fact that they are both northerners. Gould is Canadian after all.

Solomon Volkov: Bach Gulda is an active participant in life, he seems to be with us all the time. And listening to Bach performed by Richter, we leave life, we are carried away somewhere and listen to this music as if far from above.

Alexander Genis: ""Personal note"".

Solomon Volkov: Today in the “Personal Note” section there will be a work by Sergei Slonimsky, a St. Petersburg composer whom I have known for many years, who, when I studied at the Leningrad Conservatory, was already a leading and respected teacher with whom I often encountered, talked, very I learned a lot from him. And I am still under the spell of his personality. He recently came to New York, we had not seen each other for almost 40 years, we met and talked as if we had never parted. And the composition I’m talking about was performed not so long ago in St. Petersburg. There, at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, a festival was organized called “Under the Sign of Eternity.” It goes through for the second time. In this case, it had the subtitle “Royal Books”, because the program of this festival included works associated with three Russian monarchs: Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov and Peter the Great. Musically, in my opinion, the most interesting figure here is Ivan the Terrible. Therefore, Slonimsky’s opus, which I will show, is the overture to his opera “Visions of Ivan the Terrible.” But first I would like to show the work of the Russian classic Rimsky-Korsakov, who was also very attracted to the figure of Ivan the Terrible. In general, Grozny, like perhaps no one else, has always been a symbolic person, a symbolic figure for Russian culture. That is, in the mirror of Grozny, relatively speaking, each time the modern situation of Russian society was reflected.

Alexander Genis: Moreover, this also comes from historians: from Karamzin, and from Klyuchevsky, and from Solovyov. In all of them, Ivan the Terrible is the central figure. I think that this also happens because some kind of parallel with the ancient world is needed. And, let’s say, Ivan the Terrible is like Caesar, this is the axis on which the Russian monarchy stands. And it has always been a question of liberal and conservative worldviews.

Solomon Volkov: And either Grozny was interpreted in a positive way, as a collector of Russia (this is an eternal theme), or he could be treated as a tyrant (but also a tyrant, as they say, in his own mind), or he could be interpreted as an absolutely insane killer .

Alexander Genis: It is interesting that Meyerhold interpreted Ivan the Terrible as a Renaissance figure, and he said that tents open behind Ivan, which are blown by this wind of freedom, the wind of genius. And he saw in him such a tyrant-genius. But it is curious that the image of Ivan the Terrible has now returned to Russian culture again, and in an extremely curious way. The fact is that when not even perestroika began, but when perestroika had already ended, when Russian freedom began, when the current situation began, the main historical character whom politicians of all directions wanted to see as their idol was Peter the Great. However, it was not Peter, but Ivan the Terrible, who returned back to Russian culture. Now a film has been released about Ivan the Terrible - “Tsar”.
But I am much more interested in Sorokin’s interpretation of Ivan the Terrible, who returned both this image and this language to our culture. I asked Sorokin how he managed to write so deftly in the language of Ivan the Terrible - after all, it is the language of the 16th century. He said that every Russian has this language on his tongue, you just need to remove the brake and speech will flow, which was understandable to the guardsmen.

Solomon Volkkov: And the same thing, by the way, is to a large extent in music. Rimsky-Korsakov, a man who reacted very sharply to social problems in his music, has two operas associated with Ivan the Terrible - “The Woman of Pskov” and “The Tsar’s Bride”. “The Pskovite” he began to write as a very young man, its first edition dates back to 1872, then he made another edition, but it is usually performed in the last edition of 1892, and there Grozny is interpreted as Tsar Grozny, in accordance with the literary principle dramas of the poet Lev May, but as a person, as they say, he is very intelligent and sensible. But it’s interesting that in Rimsky-Korsakov’s overture, which I want to show now, we also feel this ominous aura, which inevitably accompanied even such a generally rather positive view of Ivan the Terrible. Conducted by Vasily Sinaisky, BBC Philharmonic Orchestra.

Alexander Genis: Solomon, this ominous aura that we just heard in this musical episode, it seems to me that it resembles Prokofiev’s music for the film “Ivan the Terrible”.

Solomon Volkov: Undoubtedly. Prokofiev was a student of Rimsky-Korsakov, and this St. Petersburg tradition passed from Rimsky-Korsakov to Prokofiev and then to Slonimsky, who actually belongs to the same school, who wrote interestingly and a lot about Prokofiev. He is a wonderful expert on Prokofiev's work. By the way, he always complained and told me that in St. Petersburg he was always treated like a black sheep. This is the city of Shostakovich, and he was, as it were, a follower to a greater extent of Prokofiev. But Slonimsky’s attitude towards Ivan the Terrible is certainly negative, and he views him as an insane bloodsucker.

Alexander Genis: Because he had already gone through the experience of Stalin.

Solomon Volkov: Certainly. And the libretto for this opera, which was called “Visions of Ivan the Terrible” (it premiered in Samara in 1999 under the direction of Mstislav Rostropovich as conductor), was written by Yakov Gordin, with whom Slonimsky collaborates in the opera field.

Alexander Genis: Amazing. Yakov Gordin, let me remind you, is the co-editor of the Zvezda magazine and our mutual friend and comrade.

Solomon Volkov: And he is also the author of the libretto for Slonimsky’s other operas - “Maryz Stewart” and “Hamlet”. And this is the portrait of the tsar, modern and, at the same time, connected with history, which is reflected in Slonimsky’s overture to his opera “Visions of Ivan the Terrible.”

Alexander Genis: "Tolstoy and Music: War and Peace." Solomon, in our “War and Peace” column there is more and more war. And Tolstoy, with all his temperament, of course, he could not resist, and he fought with the entire musical world of the then Russia. Was there a musician he loved?

Solomon Volkov: Yes, I was. This is Alexander Borisovich Goldenweiser, a legendary figure in the field of music, pianist and composer, teacher, outstanding teacher who trained more than one wonderful pianist. And, you know, I even met him.

Alexander Genis: How old was he then?

Solomon Volkov: Oh, he would be very old, so dry all over. I looked at him with incredible respect, knowing that this is a man who spent so much time with Tolstoy that he wrote a whole book about it. I had this book then, and I gave it to him to inscribe. And this book inscribed by him and the book “Leo Tolstoy on Literature and Art” (he inscribed two books for me) are still kept here, in my New York library. These are the treasures of my private book collection. So they were afraid of him, and respected him, and were in awe of him - he was an incredible authority. And he, in turn, was a convinced Tolstoyan in his youth, and in this capacity he sort of became friends with Tolstoy. But, besides, Tolstoy liked Goldenweiser, he liked the way he played, he liked that he played chess well. He and Tolstoy played a lot of chess and there is even a photograph of them at the chessboard. And Goldenweiser was, as they say, Lev Nikolaevich’s personal, private pianist. People went about their business in the same Yasnaya Polyana, and Goldenweiser sat at the piano and played a wide variety of music.

Alexander Genis: That is, thanks to him we know what Tolstoy loved?

Solomon Volkov: Yes. But it’s interesting that he played both what Tolstoy liked and what Tolstoy didn’t like either. In particular, he played Tchaikovsky for him, because Goldenweiser and Tchaikovsky had a very direct line, Goldenweiser studied composition with Arensky and Taneyev, who, in turn, studied with Tchaikovsky, were Tchaikovsky’s favorite students and, thus, Goldenweiser can be called musical grandson of Tchaikovsky. And when I listen to this recording of “Sentimental Waltz” by Tchaikovsky, I imagine how he sits and plays this music, and Lev Nikolaevich, maybe listens, maybe reads, and everyone else goes about their business - who knits, who looks through newspapers, who is busy with some other household chores, and above all this hovers this “Sentimental Waltz” by Tchaikovsky.

Representative of the National Association Jānis Jesalnieks is outraged by the behavior of the EuroPride participants, which took place in Riga in June 2015. He wrote about this on his microblog Twitter.

“The representatives of EuroPride have nothing sacred! Today, on the day of mourning, they are organizing an exhibition of cartoons and a pop concert! Thus, they show their attitude towards the victims of the Soviet occupation,” says Iesalnieks.
Source: Gays and lesbians were accused of disrespect for the victims of the occupation
http://baltijalv.lv/news/read/26020

The topic of unconventional love does not contribute to increasing the birth rate,
in accordance with the main theme of our site (products for children). But this topic has recently dominated in politics, art, and public relations. Therefore, we will devote this page to pink, blue and other unconventionality.
You won’t find homophobia or anything like that, we don’t really care. Perverts won't be interested either, no strawberries. Just links.
So, links on the topic of non-traditional sexual orientation:

The most famous gays of Latvia - the semi-mythical Riga restaurateur

Rowens Pritula, whom the yellow press calls Dima Bilan's lover

And the very real head of the Latvian Foreign Ministry, Edgars Rinkevich, who has repeatedly been the center of several high-profile stories, for example, with the “black list” or coming out, when he wrote on Twitter that he was proud of his orientation..

A moment of glory for a man hitherto unknown to anyone outside of Latvia, but now known everywhere. And everyone now knows who this man is.

Russia, as you know, is somewhat larger than Latvia, which is why there are more gays in it:

There are many tragic stories involving gays on television. In recent years, several murders of TV presenters and journalists were immediately surrounded by confident rumors about the sexual background of the incident.

The whole country was shocked by the shocking news of the birth of twins in the family of Maxim Galkin and Alla Pugacheva. However, even a relatively recent wedding with the “lady of his heart” and such a wonderful event as the birth of children, albeit surrogate ones, cannot convince the public who doubt his orientation. After all, Maxim is far from the only father in domestic show business suspected of unconventional sexual preferences. We found at least seven more.
(Total 8 photos)

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 that 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.

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.

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.