This book's been controversial since it was published in '79, 4 years after Shostakovich’s death. Some think it’s largely fabricated, others think it accurately represents the composer. The interviewer/author doesn’t do an exceptional job (e.g. there’s essentially nothing about Shostakovich’s family after his childhood), but if it’s substantially a fabrication, it’s pretty well done and pretty consistent. Regardless, it’s full of the tragedy and horror of life under Stalin, particularly as it affected the Soviet cultural elite, with many disturbing but interesting episodes. Surely the general gist is accurate.

More positively, it sheds a little light on Russian music from an important composer’s perspective, especially regarding Glazunov as an educator and also regarding Mussorgsky (if we trust these specifics). Nearly every paragraph is thick with a sarcasm that seems akin to the irony and sarcasm in Shostakovich’s music. Tragic as the material is, the sarcasm is often funny and occasionally hilarious. I haven’t seen the new Ashkenazy forward – I’d like to hear his take on the book. ( )

http://spwebdesign.livejournal.com/761314.html ( )

As you my learn by reading more about the Author and this book, this is perhaps the greatest hoax in the history of anti-soviet propaganda, as well as an insult to the composer himself. Volkov said that Shostakovich dictated the material in the book at a series of meetings with him between 1971 and 1974. However, when challenged, Volkov refused to show any notes pertinent to is writings. As per Wiki's comments: The strongest criticisms of the book were raised by Laurel Fay first in 1980, then in 2002 (when she claimed to have finally managed to access an original manuscript of Testimony in Russian — which, in fact, is not the original manuscript, but a publishing house copy, which differs significantly from the real original manuscript).[citation needed] She found that passages at the beginning of eight of the chapters duplicate almost verbatim material from articles published as Shostakovich’s between 1932 and 1974. Volkov thus persuaded Shostakovich to sign each page containing the composer’s own material, before attaching to it fabricated material of Volkov’s own doing. A second argument against the book is that Volkov did not meet Shostakovich often enough to have received the material. Shostakovich’s widow, Irina, has stated that Volkov met him only three or four times. Regardless of Volkov, I ask myself why don't we look more in the politics of music at time of Beethoven, or never mention that Richard Strauss was a Nazi, that Beethoven was left poor and sick by the regime, and that Haydn was a dictator and "boss" of all musicians at his time? Is it because we don't have enough bad things to say about the USSR? I think we don't need to invent anything, just listen to his music and try to understand how human suffering can produce sublime art. As in Beethoven's last quartets or Mahler's last symphonies. There is good music and bad music. Bad music is very much influenced by the ruling class. Genius is not and never will. Some people, like Shosta, are above what we see and perceive, and this is why they are virtually immortal. I personally had the honor to meet him, I was 8, in 1965 and adults told me that he was the most private person, the most self-critical and modest musician, and a total loner. Did Stalin make him like this? If you think so, you are like the Stalinist who equated him (Stalin) to god. ( )

I bought this book in the 1980s, very soon after it was published. So it was not very long after the death of Shostakovich.
My assumption that this would be the only chance that was available to hear his statements about his life needed to be quesitoned. He doesn't seem to be the type of guy who goes on and on talking about hismelf, writing autobiographies left and right, like some famous people do. But there still must be the occasional piece here and there, in Russian, that could be sought out, if one had the inclination. Certainly in 1980, I couldn't go to Russia and search out libraries, but now in the 2010, it would be easy to find whatever applicable things are available by using the internet.
I heard that this book caused a huge controversy because Solomon Volkov would have no one to check up on him if he doctored or altered Shostakovich's statements made in their interviews.
Some of the stories are very juicy--i.e. on the surface, they seem to be like gossip that you love to hear about people that are interesting to you--but that is a small matter. People usually don't care too much about autobiographies that are boring or mundane.

A controversial book; doubt has been cast on the accuracy of Volkov's reporting. Certainly to me, the voice of Shostakovich that comes over is too jaundiced to be entirely credible; after all, Shostakovich was a child of the Bolshevik Revolution and held the values of those days very dear. Many Russian Communists did even though they were uneasy with the excesses of Stalin's rule, and Shostakovich was no different. None of this comes over in Volkov's rendition. After all, he was a volunteer fireman during the siege of Leningrad and had to be ordered to leave the city - these were the acts of a patriot, but no sense of this side of Shostakovich comes through.

I suspect Volkov may have been responsible for some very selective editing, taking out of Shostakovich's account anything that was at all complementary of the Soviet system and ideals. So I believe this is only a partial account of Shostakovich's life, filtered through the mind of someone with an agenda of their own.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Postscript, November 2019: Ten years after I wrote the above review, the changes in the former Soviet Union have brought all manner of new material to light. They have also brought to light much about the USSR that we only suspected, and never knew directly. Russia is a hard country and it breeds hard people. Other, later reviewers here on LT have written from positions of greater knowledge; taking those writings on board and considering them in the light of what I have learnt in the past ten years changes my opinion of this book, to its detriment. My opinion of - and admiration for - Shostakovich remains unchanged. ( )