PÄRT MIGRATING THROUGH MUSIC
PÄRT MIGRATING THROUGH MUSIC
An Autoethnographic Comparison
Aaron Klenke, 649097, 31.03.2025
Humboldt University of Berlin
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Department of Musicology and Media Studies
Course: Echoes Across Borders: Navigating the Musical Tapestry of Berlin’s
Mirgations
Lecturer: Dr. George Athanasopoulos
STRUCTURE
INTRODUCTION
Contextualization, Theoretical Framework and Methodologies
DISCUSSION
Me in Berlin - Pärt in Tallin
Pärt’s Relocation to Berlin - My Relocation to Tallinn.
Pärt in Berlin - Me in Tallinn.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
Migration is a continuous process, that has always existed throughout history of humans. Migration is generally defined as a lasting or semi-lasting change in residence. This definition does not impose limits on the distance traveled or whether the move is voluntary or forced, nor does it differentiate between internal and international migration. As a result, relocating from one apartment to another within the same building is considered migration just as much as moving from one country to another - despite the significant differences in motivations and impacts (Lee, 1966). Migration shapes individual and group identities, society, politics, history and geography to name a few. This connection is reciprocal - just as migration shapes these aspects, they also shape migration in response. Viewing migration in this way reveals that music, as an integral part of human life, is inherently connected to migration. Music migrates with us in many different forms when we are (Stokes, 1994). Following I explore a specific example of the connection between migration and music. The idea emerged when I realized that Arvo Pärt, the Estonian composer, migrated from Tallinn to Berlin in the 80s, while I migrated in the opposite direction decades later, from Berlin to Tallinn. I found this mirrored migration interesting, especially given our shared identity as musicians. It leaves our differences to be the social, political, historical and geographical contexts of two different musicians and gives insights into each of our social and individual identities.
Contextualization, Theoretical Framework and Methodologies
This study combines scholarly research and fieldwork all highly connected to my personal inquiry. The study of Arvo Pärt is grounded in an extensive body of research.. It explores his art, mainly his music and compositional style. Deeply connected to this and another important topic of studies are his philosophical and theological ideas. These spiritual and particularly christian thoughts are important in understanding the depth and character of Pärt’s art and life as some research suggests (Gröhn, 2006). His biography and his positioning within historical, sociological and political contexts are another big part of what has been published about him and not to be separated from his art. Researches have analyzed his distinctive place within 20th and 21st-century showing the complexity of Arvo Pärt as a focus of research (Kautny, 2002). The key source for my paper is Restagno’s (2012) interview with Pärt and his wife Nora Pärt. It offers a valuable opportunity to engage with Pärt’s experiences and own reflections, serving as an ideal comparison to my autoethnographic perspective. This approach is next to the textual research on Arvo Pärt’s. This method is twofold: I examine myself both as a separated subject of research, just as I do with Pärt, while simultaneously researching or studying Pärt. This provides a means of linking personal experience to broader discussions. Autoethnography bridges the subjective and academic, allowing for self-reflective engagement with themes (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011). My own experience of migration as a musician offers a contemporary counterpoint to Pärt’s. Through my migration to Tallinn, I learned more about Pärt and myself. Through the comparative approach, I investigate similarities and differences, researching migration through musicology and its connections to sociology, political sciences, history and geography. Born (2010) advocates for a interdisciplinary approach to musicology that emphasizes the integration of multiple disciplines to better research within musicology. This approach provides a framework for discussing through a variety of lenses, offering a more nuanced understanding of musical phenomena (Denhardt, 2005). My personal and artistic research about Pärt is highly subjective and cannot be fully conveyed, requiring me to set limits within this paper and construct a structured narrative. To study Arco Pärt I migrated to Tallinn. Beyond my broader exploration of Tallinn and its context, I want to highlight two places. The first is the Arvo Pärt Centre, where I explored archival materials, recordings, and exhibitions dedicated to his life and artistic legacy. The second is the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre, where I engaged with Pärt’s work through its library, faculty, and students in an academic setting, learning from some of his students or musicians that met him. The structure of this paper is important to my framework by organizing the discussion into three parallel migrational situations. Lee (1966) theorizes migration into + and - factors associated with the area of origin (a) , associated with the area of destination (c) and the intervening obstacles of relocation (b). On top of this I layer my simple idea of comparison as a guiding principle. (a) Me in Berlin – Pärt in Tallinn. Comparing the factors at the area of origin. (b) Pärt’s relocation to Berlin My relocation to Tallinn. Exploring the obstacles of the relocation. (c) Pärt in Berlin - Me in Tallinn. Comparing the factors at the area of destination. This structure is a choice, analytical tool, narrative and a necessary limitation, allowing me to not loose objectivity in this highly subjective approach. By structuring the research this way, I aim to draw insights not only for musicology and migration studies but also for the related disciplines sociology, political science, history, and geography, which are not only relevant to me but find their place in scientific research.
DISCUSSION
Me in Berlin – Pärt in Tallinn.
Applying for my Erasmus exchange, I wrote a motivational letter, which I am now revisiting to gain insights into what drove me to leave Berlin. My primary feeling was one of entrapment - being caught in the same routines, surrounded by the same people, institutions, and experiences after living in Berlin for so long. I always tried to stay flexible and reinvent myself but I felt like I do not know what to change to feel better. I remember being depressed and going for therapy. The sense of stagnation was a major reason for my decision. I felt an desire to encounter something new, to break away from the familiar, and to experience a different environment. However, beneath this surface-level motivation, there was a deeper, more pressing issue. My music studies, combined with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, had left me feeling emotionally drained and disconnected from my love for music. I experienced a growing frustration with the academic structures, institutional expectations, and interests of my peers. I wanted an experience that was personal and self-determined - something independent of academic mandates and external pressures. I needed to reconnect with music on my own terms, to rediscover the passion that had initially drawn me to it. Additionally, I recognized the importance of international experiences in feeling part and connected to other people in my surrounding. Having spent my entire life in Berlin, I was surrounded by international students and artists, yet I lacked firsthand exposure to other cultural and artistic perspectives beyond my city. I felt like I am loosing connection. Erasmus seemed like a crucial step in expanding my understanding myself, others and the world. At the same time, Berlin itself had become overwhelming. The city, known for its vibrancy, creativity, and endless opportunities, paradoxically made it difficult for me to grow. I felt immense insecurity about my future, as the "promised land" of artistic freedom, to me it felt like an oversaturated place with limited opportunities. Every opportunity seemed to come with explicit or implicit prerequisites—connections, institutional backing, or adherence to particular artistic or ideological trends. Even jazz studies, which I had initially perceived as a space of freedom and rigorous inquiry, became entangled in bureaucratic constraints and artistic limitations. Despite the best efforts of students and teachers to counter these challenges, the additional strain of the pandemic intensified the sense of restriction. Music, which I always felt very deeply connected to, started to feel like an obligation. I reached a critical point where I questioned my connection to music. Maybe it was never as deep as I thought. Maybe I am not good enough. If it couldn't fulfill me on a personal and artistic level, financial stability anyways difficult to gain through it, was it still worth pursuing? I felt a pressure within myself, encountering the difficulty of reaching all the things I imagined of myself. I came to the conclusion and wrote this down in my diary , that my feeling of being trapped did not connect to a lack of something, but rather from an excess - too many people, too much competition, and too many possible but yet seemingly impossible pathways. This overwhelming environment contributed to burnout, depression, uncertainty, and the wish to rediscover why I had chosen music in the first place. Arvo Pärt describes the increasing difficulties he faced in Tallinn as a result of various factors, with the stance of the government officials playing a crucial role. His compositions were being increasingly performed in Western countries outside Soviet control. However, denying a composer permission to attend the premiere of their own work would have been a conspicuous act, potentially casting the Soviet regime in a negative light - an outcome the authorities sought to avoid. Additionally, the growing number of positive Western critiques of his works raised concerns among officials regarding their ideological alignment with communist doctrine. Pärt characterizes his situation as progressively deteriorating until it became intolerable. According to Restagno, other composers such as Sofia Gubaidulina, Alfred Schnittke, and Edison Denisov reported similar experiences, where success in the West was perceived as an act of defiance against the Soviet Union. He suggests that this hostility may have stemmed from the resentment of less talented composers who had secured positions within the regime. Nora Pärt notes that while composers in Moscow would have faced harsher consequences, the officials in Estonia appeared more uncertain. They debated over who was responsible for the conflict surrounding Arvo Pärt, ultimately engaging in internal disputes that led to indecision. She recounts a specific moment when members of the Estonian Central Committee visited their home and suggested them to leave the country. At the same time, members of the Composers' Association waited in the hallway, delivering a "friendly" suggestion for Pärt to leave the country. According to Nora Pärt, this process followed a systematic approach. By keeping such actions unofficial, the authorities operated through implicit power structures rather than formal protocols, allowing them to control narratives and shape propaganda while maintaining plausible deniability in outward communication. This event may was a critical moment in Pärt's migrational process. Although the visit was superficially polite, she describes it as a ultimatum, effectively pressuring them to depart from the Soviet Union and its controlled territories. Furthermore, she emphasizes that framing their departure as a mere suggestion allowed those in power to evade direct accountability while simultaneously portraying Pärt as a traitor to his homeland (Restagno, 2012). Both Arvo Pärt’s and my experiences highlight that relocation is often driven by multiple - factors pushing the migrant from the origin, while + factors keep the migrant at the place. This is a process happening over time until the balance of these factors flips. Pärt faced direct political and ideological constraints that made it impossible for him to pursue his artistic career freely. His music was perceived as incompatible with the dominant ideological framework of the Soviet Union, and his success in the West led to his exclusion from cultural and social circles in Tallinn. The sociopolitical tensions of the Cold War further reinforced these divisions, making his position untenable. He was systematically excluded from institutional and social structures necessary for presenting his music to the public. Those in power deliberately used their influence to make it impossible or dangerous for Arvo Pärt to work. While this grew over time a crucial event made Pärt start his relocation. Interesting is that even the difference in Pärts and mine factors. It seems that what I perceived as - factors in Berlin Pärt was missing in Tallinn. My relocation was not forced by political powers but was instead shaped by personal pressures. Feelings overwhelm and uncertainty and through this fears about the future and internal pressure - fundamental human concerns related to security and self-fulfillment - played a crucial role. Unlike Pärt, whose problems were imposed by an external regime, my struggle stems from navigating an oversaturated environment within capitalism. Comparison within capitalist systems fosters internalized pressure, often resulting in feelings of inadequacy and unfulfilled potential when individuals perceive themselves in relation to others who appear to either succeed or fail within the same framework. This mechanism contributes to social isolation, as Western capitalist structures emphasize individualism, positioning individuals as self-contained entities responsible for their own success or failure, much like companies operating in a competitive market (Sennet, 1989).
Pärt’s Relocation to Berlin – My Relocation to Tallinn
It took Pärt and his family several weeks after the previously mentioned event to prepare for relocation, during which they emptied their apartment and gathered all necessary documents. Although they obtained a visa for Israel, they were uncertain about their destination. They brought musical scores and manuscripts with them but required a specific stamp for official permission to take these materials out of the country. To assure this, a government worker added a bureaucratic stamp as a supportive gesture. However, at the border, this very stamp caused complications, as it was interpreted as a state secret that was not permitted to leave the Soviet Union. They underwent rigorous border inspections, during which border police searched the tapes of Arvo Pärt’s recordings, played them for review, and even subjected their children to thorough searches. They ultimately traveled to Vienna, knowing that many emigrants were gathered in camps there before continuing to Israel. An official from ECM Records was waiting for them in Vienna, having learned of their situation through friends of the family. The label offered Arvo Pärt support and a place to stay. This connection led to a collaboration, and later, Pärt received a DAAD scholarship, which enabled him to relocate to Berlin, where he resided for many years (Restagno, 2012). My relocation process began with applying for the Erasmus exchange program. I had to prepare documents and meet specific requirements, and I was fortunate to be accepted by the university. Ultimately, I received funding for a specific type of slow travel and to support myself in Estonia and cover various expenses. The relocation was thus supported in multiple ways. Since Estonia, along with the countries I traveled through by bus, is part of the EU, I was able to move freely without the need for a visa or border controls. I made a stop in Warsaw along the way, which gave me the opportunity to take time for myself, explore, and enjoy the journey. This experience felt like the beginning of something new, and I was excited yet uncertain about what would come, as it was my first time living in another country. The overall process was relatively easy, driven by my desire to explore, learn, and grow. Arvo Pärt’s obstacles were shaped by Soviet-era restrictions, where bureaucratic hurdles, major uncertainties, such as not having a clear destination or security about his situation, were part of his relocation. Eventually, by luck and through unexpected help and a sponsorship he was able relocate to Berlin. Berlin was not his initial goal, it just happened to work out like this. His experience highlights the challenges faced during the cold war, where freedom of movement was severely restricted. In contrast, my relocation, facilitated by the Erasmus program, was far less restrictive and even promoted. As Estonia is part of the EU, I faced no visa requirements or border controls. Supported by funding for slow travel, I had the freedom to explore and enjoy my journey, including a stop in Warsaw. The process felt like an opportunity for personal and academic growth granted, driven by curiosity and excitement. Unlike Pärt’s forced migration, my experience reflects the ease of movement within the EU and the support for academic and artistic endeavors in today’s globalized context. It shows that our obstacles during relocation were very different.
Pärt in Berlin – Me in Tallinn
Arvo Pärt's time in Berlin was marked by personal and artistic freedom, offering opportunities for growth. He found success in the city. He was able to travel freely, meet international ensembles such as the Hilliard Ensemble and others who performed his music for the first time in the way he had always envisioned as he describes. His works were played, recorded, and published by renowned institutions and artists, allowing him to refine and develop his unique artistic identity. This period enabled Pärt to shape his artistic voice in a way that garnered widespread success and attention. He experienced a freedom that greatly influenced both his life and work (Restagno, 2012). In Tallinn, I found the peace and quiet that I had missed in Berlin, which allowed me to reconnect with music on a deeply personal level. I experienced freedom to reinvent myself with financial security. Being in a completely new environment with a different culture and language was liberating, offering me new perspectives. This sense of freedom was partly a result of letting go of pressure; I was financially supported, with a clear timeframe that allowed me to focus on my work without personal stress. It was evident what I wanted to achieve, and I even wrote it down, which helped me stay focused amid the vast changes in surroundings and people that reshaped my self-image. I also remember thinking that if something went wrong, it wouldn't matter. I could embrace the experience, learn from it, and grow, because I didn’t have the burden of needing to succeed in this particular place. In addition the context in Tallinn helped me, to feel more at ease, everything felt less overwhelming, I felt deeply emotionally connected to everything, which was the opposite to my state in Berlin. The differences in culture, new places and new people and a clear focus for this time helped me to get back to my love for music.
CONLUSION
Pärt’s relocation was driven by direct political repression within the Soviet Union, where ideological constraints systematically excluded him from artistic and social structures. His eventual migration was triggered by the increasing impossibility of pursuing his work within this framework. In contrast, my relocation was not imposed by authoritarian restrictions but emerged from personal pressures within a capitalist system. The oversaturation of artistic and professional environments fosters internalized competition, leading to emotional overwhelm, uncertainty, and self-doubt. While Pärt was deprived of institutional structures necessary for artistic expression, my struggle stems from an excess of choice and comparison, reinforcing individual isolation. This reflects broader sociocultural mechanisms: in authoritarian regimes, external forces dictate artistic possibility, whereas in capitalist systems, internalized pressures shape perceptions of success and failure. By examining these contrasting yet structurally linked experiences, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the psychosocial dimensions of migration in different ideological contexts. The comparison between Arvo Pärt’s and my relocation experiences underscores the profound differences in mobility constraints shaped by socio-cultural contexts. Pärt’s migration was marked by bureaucratic barriers and uncertainty as Cold War-era restrictions severely constrained freedom of movement. His relocation to Berlin was not a planned decision but rather the result of unforeseen opportunities, external support, and sheer luck. In contrast, my relocation was facilitated by the Erasmus program, reflecting the openness and institutional support within the European Union. With no visa barriers and financial assistance for slow travel, my journey was shaped by personal agency, curiosity, and academic opportunity rather than external pressures. This contrast highlights not only shifts in mobility structures but also the differing forms of systemic influences on the individual in authoritarian regimes and capitalist democracies. While the Soviet Union exerted direct political and bureaucratic control over movement, today’s capitalist system regulates mobility through economic conditions, personal competition, and institutional frameworks that shape opportunity. Freedom of movement may no longer be restricted by political force, but it is still influenced by economic and social pressures, determining who can afford to relocate and under what circumstances. Arvo Pärt’s time in Berlin freed him from Soviet repression, allowing his artistic vision to flourish. His success reflects how authoritarian regimes restrict movement and creativity, while their removal enables growth. In contrast, my time in Tallinn provided relief from internal pressures, offering space for artistic reconnection. But even this stayed under the goal of self-optimization within a capitalist system. While authoritarianism enforces control externally, capitalism shapes freedom through internal and individual pressures. Referring again to Sennet (1989) influencing how individuals feel compared to each other and connect to society.
REFERENCES
Born, G. (2010). For a relational musicology: Music and interdisciplinarity, beyond the
practice turn: The 2007 Dent Medal address. Journal of the Royal Musical Association,
135(2), 205-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02690403.2010.506265
Denhardt, R. A. (2005). Handbook of interdisciplinary research. SAGE Publications.
Gröhn, C. (2006). Dieter Schnebel und Arvo Pärt: Komponisten als "Theologen". Lit
Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8258-9599-0.
Kautny, O. (2002). Arvo Pärt zwischen Ost und West: Rezeptionsgeschichte. J.B.
Metzler. Edition.
Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47–57.
Restagno, E., Braunes, T., & Kareda, J. (2012). Arvo Pärt im Gespräch. Universal
Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W.W. Norton & Company.