UR. JERNEJ WEISS GLASBENA KRITIKA – NEKOČ IN DANES MUSIC CRITICISM – YESTERDAY AND TODAY 7 studia musicologica labacensia e-issn 2712-2867 studia musicologica labacensia Izid monografije so podprli glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes music criticism – yesterday and today ur. Jernej Weiss 2024 Znanstvena monografija z mednarodno udeležbo Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today Uredil Jernej Weiss Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7 (E-ISSN 2712-2867) Glavni urednik ■ Jernej Weiss (Ljubljana/Maribor) Odgovorni urednik ■ Jonatan Vinkler (Koper) Tehnična urednica ■ Rebeka Glasenčnik Kociper (Ljubljana) Uredniški odbor ■ Matjaž Barbo (Ljubljana), Helmut Loos (Leipzig), Wolfgang Marx (Dublin), Lubomír Spurný (Brno), Leon Stefanija (Ljubljana), Michael Walter (Graz), Jernej Weiss (Ljubljana/Maribor) Recenzentki ■ Luisa Antoni, Špela Lah Oblikovanje in prelom ■ Jonatan Vinkler, Tajda Senica Prevod ■ Amidas d. o. o. Jezikovni pregled (slovensko besedilo) ■ Jernej Weiss Izdala in založila Založba Univerze na Primorskem (zanjo: prof. dr. Klavdija Kutnar, rektorica) Titov trg 4, SI-6000 Koper Glavni urednik ■ Jonatan Vinkler Vodja založbe ■ Alen Ježovnik Festival Ljubljana (zanj: Darko Brlek, direktor in umetniški vodja) Trg francoske revolucije 1, SI-1000 Ljubljana Koper, Ljubljana 2024 ISBN 978-961-293-299-2 (PDF) http://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-293-299-2.pdf ISBN 978-961-293-307-4 (HTML) http://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-293-307-4/index.html DOI: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2 Brezplačna elektronska izdaja © 2024 avtorji/authors Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 181849091 ISBN 978-961-293-299-2 (Založba Univerze na Primorskem, PDF) ISBN 978-961-293-307-4 (Založba Univerze na Primorskem, HTML) Vsebina | Contents Jernej Weiss 9 Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes Jernej Weiss 15 Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today Alex Ross 23 Classical Music Criticism: An American Perspective Susanne Kogler 35 Innovation, Art, Society, and Life: Deliberations on Music Criticism’s Past, Presenceand Future Hartmut Krones 53 Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ Wien der 1880er Jahre Bianca Schumann 67 “Catholic” Programme Music? Franz Liszt’s Religiosity in the Focus of the Viennese Press (1857–1900) Helmut Loos 77 Music of Progress and the Future: On the Roots of a Fierce Press Feud in the Second Half of the 19th Century Stefan Keym 89 Künstlerische vs. politische Aspektevon Musikkritik: Zur Rezeption „ausländischer” Orchestermusik in der Leipziger Musikpresse des 19. Jahrhunderts 7 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Viktor Velek 103 Emil Břetislav Lvovský or Who was the harshest Viennese critic of Antonín Dvořák’s music? Niall O’Loughlin 131 Putting Music Criticism to Positive Purpose: William Glock’s Promotion of Three Composers Wolfgang Marx 147 Music Criticism in Ireland Lucija Konfic 169 Music in the Karlovac Press in the Nineteenth Century Luba Kijanovska, Lidiya Melnyk 197 Musikjournalismus vs. Musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? Darja Koter 209 Lucijan Marija Škerjanc: Critic of the Jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 Jernej Weiss 227 “A Critique of Criticism”: An Attempt to Outline “More Appropriate” Sociopolitical Guidelines in Post-World War II Slovenian Music Criticism Tjaša Ribizel Popič 245 Symphonic Matinees of Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia: The First Two Decades Borut Smrekar 261 What is happening to music criticism? 281 Povzetki 293 Summaries 305 Avtorji 313 Contributors 8 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.9-14 Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes Jernej Weiss Univerza v Ljubljani / Univerza v Mariboru Znanstvena monografija z naslovom Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes pozornost namenja vlogi in pomenu glasbene kritike v preteklosti in sedanjosti. » Če je imelo moje šestdesetletno delovanje kritika sploh kakšno korist, je bila ta izključno v postopnem vzgojnem vplivu na javnost«,1 je zapisal eden najbolj vplivnih kritikov s skorajda papeško avtoriteto Eduard Hanslick, čigar ostra in brezkompromisna misel v uglednem dunajskem dnevniku Neue Freie Presse je pogosto odločala o umetnikovi eksistenci. Hanslickov citat izhaja iz njegove obsežne avtobiografije,2 ki je bila objavljena, ko se je bližal sedemdesetemu letu starosti in tako, zdi se, lahko objektivneje vre-dnotil svoje preteklo kritiško delo. Manj znano je, da je bil Hanslick od leta 1891 častni član ljubljanske Filharmonične družbe, ene izmed najstarejših filharmoničnih družb v Evropi. Njeni člani niso bili le številni najuglednej- ši skladatelji in izvajalci, temveč tudi nekateri najpomembnejši glasbeni kritiki. Navidez nepomemben podatek kaže, da je imela glasbena kritika pri nas, podobno kot drugod po Evropi, na prelomu v 20. stoletje še vedno eno izmed osrednjih vlog v takratnem glasbenem življenju. 1 » Hat meine langjährige kritische Thätigkeit wirklich einigen Nutzen gestiftet, so besteht er einzig in ihrem allmählich bildenden Einfluss auf das Publikum.« [If my lengthy critical activity has had any real use, it exists exclusively in a gradual educative influence on the public.] Eduard Hanslick, Aus meinem Leben, Band 2 (Berlin: Allgemeiner Verein für Deutsche Litteratur, 1894), 292. 2 Ibid., 296. 9 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Glede na Hanslickov sloves se zdi najbolj presenetljiv vidik omenjenega zapisa avtorjev poudarek na izobraževalnem pomenu kritike, ne pa na njeni estetski vlogi, kar bi seveda pričakovali od tedaj najpomembnejšega zagovornika formalistične estetike. Na drugi strani kaže tovrstna predstava o kritiku kot javnem vzgojitelju na enega izmed osrednjih pomenov kritike v 19. stoletju: iz razsvetljenstva izpeljani model kritike kot enega od najpomembnejših oblikovalcev javnega mnenja. Kljub temu, da je verjetno osnovno izobraževalno poslanstvo kritike še vedno enako, je dejstvo, da se je njena vloga z zatonom tiskanih medijev ob vse večji prevladi elementov popularne kulture močno spremenila. Od enega izmed osrednjih žanrov t. i. časopisne civilizacije v 19. stoletju do domala popolne marginalizacije kritike umetnostne glasbe, s katero se srečujemo v današnjem času. Odsotnost slednje se zdi posledica nekaterih tektonskih družbenih sprememb in docela spremenjene vloge umetnosti in medijev v današnjem času. Te v veliki meri narekuje digitalna preobrazba s povsem spremenje-no medijsko podobo in posledično še pred nekaj desetletji nepredstavlji-vimi spremembami v hitrosti, količini in dostopu do informacij. Seveda število koncertnih prireditev, ki jih je mogoče z nekaj kliki spremljati iz naslonjača, objav posnetkov na kanalu YouTube, specializiranih TV-pro-gramov s klasično glasbo, prosto dostopnih digitalnih baz posnetkov res-ne glasbe itd. omogoča večji dostop do koncertnih in opernih dogodkov kot kadarkoli. Po drugi strani pa prav zavoljo omenjene prenasičenosti, ki bolj kot kdajkoli prej zaznamuje sodobno digitalno okolje, pri uporabni-kih oz. recipientih pogosto umanjka prav prepotrebni kritični razmislek o vsebini ter sporočilnosti, ki bi zmogel ločiti zrnje od plev. Tako se tudi umetnostna kritika ob vse večji odsotnosti avtoritet, prevladi najrazličnej- ših anonimnih komentarjev ter vse bolj izraziti odvisnosti medijev od komercialnih zakonitosti oz. števila klikov potrošnikov srečuje z zahtevnejši-mi izzivi kot kadarkoli. Žal vse pogosteje prav kvantitativni kriteriji, ne le v manjših, temveč tudi v nekaterih osrednjih medijih, postajajo odločilni za obravnavo posameznega umetniškega dogodka kot tudi vrednotenje kritiškega prispevka. Tako se zdi vloga medijev v tem pogledu vsekakor ključna. Nekaj izmed omenjenih zadreg, s katerimi se v današnjem času srečuje glasbena kritika, obravnava tudi 15 prispevkov v tokratni, sedmi publikaciji zbirke Studia musicologica Labacensia. Med njimi velja omeniti uvodni članek danes enega izmed najvidnejših kritikov, skladatelja in publicista Alexa Rossa, kritika revije The New Yorker ter avtorja uspešnice Drugo je hrup 10 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ( The Rest Is Noise), ki je bila prevedena v več kot 20 jezikov, med drugim slovenščino. Ross je v svojem prispevku predstavil svoje bogate izkušnje glasbenega kritika v ZDA ter osvetlil problematiko domala neobstoječe-ga kritiškega diskurza, ki je očitno že pred leti zajela tudi ZDA. Drugi uvodni članek pa je prispevala profesorica na Inštitutu za muzikologijo Univerze v Gradcu Susanne Kogler. V njem je s pomočjo zgodovinskih primerov predstavila družbenopolitične razsežnosti kritike umetnostne glasbe v preteklosti in sedanjosti ter med drugim prikazala, kakšno vlogo bi lahko imela in kako bi se lahko glasbena kritika razvijala v prihodnje. Del nadvse razkošne glasbenokritiške podobe nekdanje habsburške prestolnice v svojih prispevkih osvetlita dunajska kolega Hartmut Krones in Bianca Schumann. Prvi svojo pozornost nameni Hugu Wolfu kot glasbenemu kritiku v izredno »prepirljivem« dunajskem dnevnem časopisju osemdesetih let 19. stoletja, v sklopu katerega so se med zagovorniki starejše absolutne in novejše programske orientacije dogajale prave časopisne vojne. Schumannova pa se v svojem prispevku osredotoči na to, kako so religioznost Franza Liszta sprejemali dunajski glasbeni kritiki druge polovice 19. stoletja. Njihove tedanje razprave se namreč niso vrtele le okoli skladateljev in njihovih estetskih preferenc, temveč so bili vse bolj pomembni tudi drugi vidiki, predvsem nacionalna identiteta in versko prepričanje, ki sta v marsi- čem definirala tudi podobo tedanjega kritiškega diskurza. Sorodno temati-ko osvetljujeta prispevka nekdanjega in sedanjega predstojnika Inštituta za muzikologijo Univerze v Leipzigu, Helmuta Loosa in Stefana Keyma. Prvi natančneje predstavi omenjeni tiskovni spor med glasbeno kritiko druge polovice 19. stoletja, ki je, kot prikaže Loos, svoje v temelju nasprotne po-glede utemeljevala, izhajajoč iz judovsko-krščanske tradicije oz. moderne-ga ateističnega gibanja. Spor je posebej odmeval v Leipzigu kot tedanji pre-stolnici nemških glasbenih založb kot tudi glasbenega časopisja v Nemčiji in širše v Evropi. Keym pa v svojem prispevku primerja umetniške in politične vidike glasbene kritike ob obravnavi »tujih« orkestrskih del v leipzi- škem glasbenem časopisju 19. stoletja. Dejstvo je, da so bile glasbene kritike proti koncu 19. stoletja vse bolj politično obarvane. V času, ko je bil nacionalizem na vrhuncu, je imelo namreč poreklo skladateljev ter poustvarjalcev v koncertnih programih vse odločilnejši pomen. Tako so tudi zakonitosti glasbenih del ter izvajalskih praks posameznih poustvarjalcev glasbeni kritiki pogosto opazovali z vidika nacionalnih stereotipov in klišejev. Z novimi raziskovalnimi izsledki postreže tudi prispevek češkega kolega Viktorja Velka, predstojnika Inštituta za muzikologijo Univerze v 11 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Ostravi, ki se je v svojem članku osredotočil na kritiško delovanje češkega glasbenika Emila Břetislava Lvovskega. Ta je v drugi polovici 19. stoletja deloval v Lvovu ter nato na Dunaju, kjer je kot korespondent iz tujine svoje kritike pošiljal eni izmed tedaj najpomembnejših čeških glasbenih revij, praškemu Daliborju. Tako je v svojih poročilih in kritikah pogosto obravnaval tudi koncertne dogodke na Dunaju delujočih slovanskih društev in glasbenikov. Sicer pa Lvovskega poznamo tudi kot enega izmed najostrej- ših kritikov glasbe Antonína Dvořáka. Delovanje še ene nadvse pomembne kritiške osebnosti osvetljuje prispevek odličnega poznavalca novejše slovenske glasbe Nialla O‘Loughlina. Ta v svojem članku obravnava delovanje izjemno vplivnega angleškega glasbenega kritika Williama Glocka, ki je bil pomemben časopisni in radijski kritik ter je med drugim kot glasbeni kontrolor temeljito prenovil vsebino BBC-jevega tretjega programa in festivala Proms. Med drugim gredo Glocku zasluge, da je s svojimi glasbeni-mi kritikami in poročili, pa tudi naročili ter izdajami njihovih skladb, iz anonimnosti povzdignil številne na Otoku delujoče glasbenike. Med njimi velja izpostaviti vsaj tri danes pomembne skladateljske osebnosti: Roberta Gerharda, Elliotta Carterja in Pierra Bouleza. Glock je bil eden izmed osrednjih kritikov vplivnega Kroga kritikov ( The Critics‘ Circle), ki je v glasbeni sekciji združeval številna najuglednejša kritiška imena, med drugim tudi na Irskem delujočega angleškega kritika Charlesa Actona. Delovanje slednjega v delu svojega članka osvetli aktualni predsednik irskega muzikološkega društva, profesor na univerzitetnem kolidžu v Dublinu Wolfgang Marx. Ta prikaže specifike glasbene kritike na Irskem v treh obdobjih njene zgodovine. Prispevek se tako osredotoča na pojav irske glasbene kritike sredi 19. stoletja in poznejši del 20. stoletja, ki ga zaznamuje predvsem kritiško delovanje že omenjenega Actona, ter razišče vpliv digitalne revolucije na glasbeno kritiko v 21. stoletju. Sodelavka Inštituta za muzikologijo Hrvaške akademije znanosti in umetnosti Lucija Konfic v svojem prispevku predstavi doslej še neraziskano, izredno bogato podobo glasbene kritike v krajevnem tisku hrvaškega mesta Karlovac v 19. stoletju. Za zbirko Studia musicologica Labacensia značilen izjemno pester nabor tujih avtorjev pa zaključuje skupni članek profesorice na Univerzi v Lvovu Lube Kijanovske ter strokovne sodelavke Inštituta za muzikologijo Univerze na Dunaju Li-diye Melnyk. Prispevek omenjenih avtoric je poskus teoretične razprave o glasbeni kritiki in glasbenem novinarstvu z vidika splošnih teorij medijev, teorij novinarstva in časopisne dejavnosti. V njem avtorici prikažeta različ- ne strategije v glasbenem novinarstvu ter na podlagi prevladujočih značil-12 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes nosti posameznega sloga oblikujeta izvirno tipologijo glasbenokritiškega pisanja (poimenovano po Hanslicku, Rellstabu in Beckmesserju). Poglobljen analitičnoraziskovalni pristop je značilen tudi za prispevke štirih domačih avtorjev, katerih članki so bili izbrani za objavo v tej publikaciji. Prvi prispevek je oblikovala profesorica na Akademiji za glasbo in odlična poznavalka slovenske glasbene preteklosti Darja Koter. Dotika se glasbenokritiškega delovanja ene izmed najvplivnejših osebnosti slovenske glasbe 20. stoletja Lucijana Marije Škerjanca. Njegovi kritiški zapisi so nastajali vse od dijaških let pa do njegove smrti ter so bili objavljeni v domala vseh za glasbeno publicistiko pomembnih slovenskih revijah in časopisih. Skupaj je zabeleženih več kot sedemsto Škerjančevih zapisov, kar avtorja uvršča med najbolj plodovite glasbene publiciste v 20. stoletju na Slovenskem. Avtorica se v svojem prispevku osredotoča na Škerjančevo predvojno glasbenokritiško delovanje v dnevniku Jutro. Sledi članek ure-dnika te publikacije, ki osvetli enega izmed redkih javnih poskusov discipliniranja slovenske glasbene kritike v novi kulturnopolitični realnosti po drugi svetovni vojni. Del tedaj vladajočega kulturnega kroga je »incident v Unionski dvorani« ob praizvedbi kantate Stara pravda Matije Tomca 12. marca 1956 izkoristil za poskus discipliniranja glasbene kritike, in sicer s prikazom »ustreznejših« družbenopolitičnih smernic v glasbenokritiškem pisanju. Glasbena kritika, ki je pokrivala omenjeni koncertni dogodek, naj namreč ne bi bila sposobna uvida v družbeno nekoristnost zgolj »estetskega« pisanja in posledično nezmožna politične obsodbe »deviantnih« druž- benih pojavov. Prispevek samostojnega raziskovalca, dolgoletnega glasbenega kritika in dirigenta Boruta Smrekarja, prinaša razmislek o vlogi in položaju glasbene kritike danes. Avtor meni, da bi se bilo potrebno glede na namen kritike opredeliti do vprašanja, kakšna naj bi bila in kakšna ne bi smela biti glasbena kritika, da lahko služi svojemu namenu, in ne nazad-nje, kje so meje glasbene kritike. Pri mejah ne gre le za dejanski vpliv, ki ga ima kritika v določenem družbenem okolju, pač pa tudi za vrednost kritike v smislu njene relevantnosti, verodostojnosti in »objektivnosti«. Nabor prispevkov, ki obravnavajo glasbeno kritiko pri nas, pa zaokroža članek Tja- še Ribizel Popič, asistentke na Oddelku za glasbeno pedagogiko Univerze v Mariboru. Že v svoji doktorski disertaciji je analizirala kritiške prispevke nekaterih najpomembnejših slovenskih kritikov po drugi svetovni vojni, v povezavi z delovanjem večine osrednjih ljubljanskih glasbenih institucij. V svojem tokratnem članku pa se Ribizel Popičeva osredotoča na kritike koncertov najvidnejše mladinske glasbene ustanove pri nas, Glasbene mladine Slovenije, in sicer njenih Simfoničnih matinej od začetkov v sedem-13 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today desetih letih do devetdesetih let 20. stoletja. V svojem prispevku avtorica prva predstavi trende objavljenih glasbenih kritik v reviji Glasbena mladina. Kljub nadvse pomembni vlogi glasbene kritike v slovenski glasbeni preteklosti se zdi, da razen posameznih obravnav glasbenokritiškega pisanja pri nas glasbena kritika tudi zavoljo svoje hibridne oz. interdisciplinarne narave še ni doživela večje pozornosti slovenske muzikološke stroke. Tako bodo na področju glasbene kritike pri nas v prihodnje vsekakor potrebne še bolj sistematične in celostne raziskave. Z bogatim naborom člankov tujih avtorjev, ki jih dopolnjuje nekaj slovenskih prispevkov, skuša ta monografija predvsem osvetliti kritiško delovanje nekaterih najpomembnejših osebnosti s področja glasbene kritike. Ta namreč ni narekovala le izvajalskih standardov, temveč je vplivala na širšo glasbeno recepcijo ter bolj ali manj aktivno sooblikovala podobo glasbene kulture. Tako prispevki domačih in tujih avtorjev jasno kažejo, da je imela glasbena kritika v preteklosti nadvse pomembno vlogo v domala vseh se-gmentih glasbenega življenja. Kot taka ta razprava namenja pozornost tudi aktualnemu stanju glasbene kritike, njenemu obstoju oz. razvojnim mož- nostim. Dejstvo je, da se je ob vse večji razširjenosti t. i. tabloidnega pri-stopa prostor, prej namenjen glasbeni kritiki, v medijih večinoma skrčil. Kratke informacije in slikovni material s širšega področja popkulture so v večini medijev povsem nadomestili podrobnejšo obravnavo kompleksnej- ših ustvarjalnih in poustvarjalnih fenomenov s področja umetnostne glasbe. V manjšem obsegu tovrsten bolj poglobljen analitični pristop ohranjajo nekateri osrednji mediji, v večji meri pa nekateri specializirani mediji, med njimi predvsem redki še delujoči nacionalni radii z umetniškimi programi. Pa vendar ostaja recipientski krog omenjenih medijev zamejen, v osrednjih medijih pa so glasbene kritike povečini vezane le še na nekatere najvidnej- še dogodke s področja kulture. Posledično se ob vse večji odsotnosti glasbene kritike zastavlja za glasbeno historiografijo nadvse pomembno, če že ne ključno vprašanje: kako si bodo naši zanamci lahko ustvarili celostno podobo o današnjem glasbenem življenju oz. kakšne posledice bo odsotnost kritične misli imela za razvoj umetnostne glasbe? Eden izmed poglavitnih namenov te študije je tako tudi apel k ohranitvi glasbene, kot tudi druge umetnostne kritike. In sicer ne le zavoljo uvida v posamezne umetniške dogodke, temveč predvsem v današnjem času vse bolj potrebne kritične refleksije širšega družbenega dogajanja. 14 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.15-21 Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today Jernej Weiss University of Ljubljana / University of Maribor The present monograph Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today looks at the role and importance of music criticism in the past and present. “If my lengthy critical activity has had any real use, it exists exclusively in a gradual educative influence on the public.”1 So wrote Eduard Hanslick, one of the most influential music critics in history, who possessed almost papal authority and whose severe and uncompromising judgements in the prestigious Viennese newspaper Neue Freie Presse frequently decided an artist’s fate. The quotation comes from Hanslick’s voluminous autobiography,2 published as he was approaching his seventieth birthday and thus able, it would seem, to evaluate his past work as a critic with greater objectivity. Less widely known is that from 1891 onwards Hanslick was also an honorary member of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society, one of the oldest philharmonic societies in Europe. The fact that as well as numerous eminent composers and performers the latter’s members included some of the most important music critics of the day clearly shows that music criticism still played a central role in musical life, as the nineteenth century turned into the twentieth. 1 “Hat meine langjährige kritische Thätigkeit wirklich einigen Nutzen gestiftet, so besteht er einzig in ihrem allmählich bildenden Einfluss auf das Publikum.” [If my lengthy critical activity has had any real use, it exists exclusively in a gradual educative influence on the public.] Eduard Hanslick, Aus meinem Leben, Band 2 (Berlin: Allgemeiner Verein für Deutsche Litteratur, 1894), 292. 2 Ibid., 296. 15 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Given Hanslick’s reputation, the most surprising aspect of the statement quoted above is the author’s emphasis on the “educative” importance of criticism, rather than on its aesthetic role – as we might have expected from a man who in his day was the champion of formalist aesthetics. On the other hand, this conception of the critic as public educator points to one of the fundamental roles of criticism in the nineteenth century: a model derived from the Enlightenment in which criticism is seen as one of the most important shapers of public opinion. While it is probable that the essential educational mission of criticism remains the same, it is a fact that the decline of print media and the increasing predominance of elements of popular culture have seen the role of criticism change significantly. From one of the central genres of the so-called newspaper civilisation of the nineteenth century, to the almost total marginalisation of art music criticism that we are faced with today. The absence of the latter appears to be the result of certain tecton-ic shifts in society and the utterly transformed role of the arts and media in the present age. This is to a large extent driven by the digital transformation, with a radically altered media landscape characterised by changes in the speed and quantity of information – and the ways we access it – that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. It is, of course, true that the number of concerts and other events that can be enjoyed from the comfort of one’s own armchair with just a few clicks of a mouse, along with recordings posted on YouTube, specialised TV programmes dedicated to classical music, freely accessible digital databases of serious music, and so on, allow greater access to concerts and opera performances than ever before. On the other hand, it is precisely because of the oversaturation that characterises the modern digital environment more than at any time in the past that there is a lack, on the part of users or recipients, of that indispensable critical reflection on content and message that makes it possible to separate the wheat from the chaff. At a time when the absence of authorities is ever more marked, anonymous comments dominate the discourse and the dependence of media on commercial considerations – in other words the number of clicks – is increasingly apparent, even artistic criticism is facing more difficult challenges than at any time in its history. It is an unfortunate fact that, more and more often, quantitative criteria – not only in smaller media but also in some mainstream media – are becoming decisive both for the treatment afforded to an individual artistic event and for the evalu-16 music criticism – yesterday and today ation of a critical contribution. In this regard, the role of the media appears to be crucial. Some of the quandaries faced by music criticism today are addressed by the 15 articles in this, the seventh edition of the collection Studia musicologica Labacensia. Among them it is worth mentioning the keynote article by one of today’s most prominent critics, the music writer Alex Ross, who is the music critic of The New Yorker and the author of the bestseller The Rest is Noise, which has been translated into more than 20 languages, including Slovene. His article draws on his wealth of experience as a music critic in the USA and sheds light on the problem of the near nonexistence of critical discourse, a phenomenon that has been affecting the USA for some time now. The second keynote article is contributed by Professor Susanne Kogler of the Institute of Musicology at the University of Graz and uses historical examples to shed light on the socio-political dimensions of art music criticism in the past and present and illustrate the kind of role that music criticism could develop in the future. Articles by Viennese colleagues Prof. Hartmut Krones and Bianca Schumann shed light on different aspects of the rich panorama of music criticism in the former Habsburg capital. The former focuses attention on composer Hugo Wolf’s activity as a music critic in the “combative” Viennese daily press of the 1880s, where an all-out war between the advocates of absolute music and those who favoured the newer programmatic orientation was waged in the pages of the capital’s newspapers. Dr Schumann’s article focuses on the reception afforded to the religiosity of Franz Liszt by Viennese music critics in the second half of the nineteenth century. Critical debate at that time did not only revolve around composers and their aesthetic preferences but gave increasing importance to other aspects, above all national identity and religious belief, which in many ways came to define the shape of critical discourse. Similar themes are addressed in the articles by Prof. Helmut Loos and Prof. Stefan Keym, respectively the past and present heads of the Institute of Musicology at the University of Leipzig. The former presents in greater detail the already mentioned dispute among music critics that took place in the pages of newspapers in the second half of the nineteenth century. As Prof. Loos demonstrates, the fundamentally oppos-ing views of these critics derived on the one hand from the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, on the other, from the modern atheist movement. The dispute had a particularly significant impact in Leipzig, which was then the capital of German music publishing and of music journalism both in Ger-17 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today many and more widely across Europe. Prof. Keym’s article, on the other hand, considers the artistic and political aspects of music criticism in relation to the treatment of “foreign” orchestral works in the Leipzig musical press in the nineteenth century. It is a fact that music criticism became increasingly politically coloured towards the end of the nineteenth century. At a time when nationalism was reaching its peak, the origin of the composers and performers featured in a concert programme was of increasingly decisive importance. In the same way, music critics frequently regarded the principles of musical works and the performance practices of individual artists through the prism of national stereotypes and clichés. The article by our Czech colleague Viktor Velek, the head of the Department of the Theory and History of Fine Arts at the University of Ostrava’s Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, focuses on the activity of the Czech musician Břetislav Lvovský (real name Emil Pick) as a music critic and presents the findings of new research. In the second half of the nineteenth century Lvovský worked in Lviv and then in Vienna, where he acted as foreign correspondent, sending his reviews to the Prague-based magazine Dalibor, at that time one of the most important Czech music publications. His reports and reviews frequently covered the concerts of Slavic musical societies and musicians working in Vienna. Lvovský is also remembered as one of the harshest critics of the music of Antonín Dvořák. The article by Niall O’Loughlin, one of the leading experts on contemporary Slovene music, shines a light on the work of another extremely important figure from the world of music criticism: the influential British music critic William Glock. In addition to his activity as a radio and newspaper critic, Glock served as controller of music at the BBC, thoroughly overhauling the output of the Third Programme, and as controller of the Proms festival. Glock’s reviews and reports helped lift numerous British-based musicians out of anonymity and he also commissioned and published works by them. Among the composers promoted by Glock, three important figures worth mentioning are Robert Gerhard, Elliott Carter and Pierre Boulez. Glock was one of the principal critics of the influential Critics’ Circle, whose music section brought together many of the most prestigious critical names, among them the British music critic Charles Acton, who was based in Ireland. The work of the latter is part of the subject of the article by Wolfgang Marx, currently president-elect of the Council of the Society for Musicology in Ireland and an associate professor at the School of Music, University College Dublin. Dr Marx’s article explores the specific characteristics of music criticism 18 music criticism – yesterday and today in Ireland at three distinct points in its history. It focuses on the emergence of Irish music criticism in the mid-nineteenth century; on music criticism in the latter part of the twentieth century, a period marked above all by the critical activity of the aforementioned Charles Acton; and on the impact of the digital revolution on music criticism in the twenty-first century. Dr Lucija Konfic of the Department for the History of Croatian Music at the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts presents an extremely rich picture of music criticism in the local press of the Croatian city of Karlovac in the nineteenth century, a subject that has not previously been researched. The final contribution from the highly diverse range of foreign authors that characterises Studia musicologica Labacensia is an article jointly written by Luba Kyanovska, a professor at the University of Lviv, and Lidiya Melnyk, an academic associate at the University of Vienna’s Institute of Musicology. The article is an attempt at a theoretical discussion of music criticism and music journalism from the point of view of general theories of media, theories of journalism and journalistic activity. In it, the authors illustrate various strategies in music journalism and, on the basis of the predominant characteristics of an individual style, formulate an original typolo-gy of music critical writing (with categories named after Hanslick, Rellstab and Beckmesser). A profoundly analytical approach to research also characterises the papers by the four Slovene authors whose articles have been chosen for publication in the present collection. The first of these comes from Darja Koter, a professor at the Academy of Music in Ljubljana and one of the leading connoisseurs of Slovenia’s musical past. Her article touches on the critical endeavours of one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century Slovene music, Lucijan Marija Škerjanc, whose critical writings spanned his entire life from his secondary school years right up until his death and appeared in practically every Slovene magazine and newspaper of significance from the point of view of music journalism. With more than 700 published pieces to his name, Škerjanc was one of the most prolific Slovene music journalists of the twentieth century. The article focuses in particular on Škerjanc’s pre-war music criticism in the daily newspaper Jutro. Next comes an article by the editor of the present publication dedicated to one of the rare public attempts at imposing discipline on Slovene music criticism in the new cultural and political reality that followed the Second World War. Elements of the ruling cultural circle used the “incident in the Union Hall” that occurred at the premiere performance of Matija Tomc’s cantata 19 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Stara pravda (“The old rights”) on 12 March 1956 as an opportunity to try and discipline the field of music criticism by presenting “more appropriate” socio-political guidelines for critical writing. The music critics who covered the event in question were deemed incapable of showing sufficient insight into the social uselessness of merely “aesthetic” writing and, consequently, unable to offer an adequate political condemnation of “deviant” social phenomena. The article by the independent researcher, established music critic and conductor Borut Smrekar reflects on the role and position of music criticism today. Regarding the purpose of criticism, the author believes that there is a need to define what music criticism should be and what it should not be if it is to serve its purpose; and, last but not least, to establish where the boundaries of music criticism lie. These boundaries are not only about the actual impact that criticism has in a given social setting, but also about the value of criticism in terms of its relevance, credibility and “objectivity”. The contributions dedicated to music criticism in Slovenia are rounded off by an article by Tjaša Ribizel Popič, an assistant in the Department of Music Education at the University of Maribor. Having already analysed, in her doctoral dissertation, the critical contributions of some of the most important Slovene critics after the Second World War in connection with the functioning of the majority of the principal musical institutions in Ljubljana, Dr Ribizel Popič now turns her attention to reviews of concerts by the most prominent youth music institution in Slovenia, Glasbena mladina Slovenije (Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia), specifically the Symphonic Matinees that took place from the early 1970s until the 1990s, and thus becomes the first author to offer a presentation of the trends that may be observed in music reviews published in the magazine Glasbena mladina. Despite the enormously important role of music criticism in Slovenia’s musical past, it nevertheless seems that, with the exception of individual treatments of music critical writing, music criticism has not yet enjoyed significant attention from Slovene musicologists, perhaps in part because of its hybrid or interdisciplinary nature. Accordingly, more systematic and comprehensive studies of the field of Slovene music criticism will be needed in the future. With a rich selection of articles by foreign authors, complemented by a number of contributions from Slovenia, the present monograph attempts above all to shed light on the critical activities of some of the most important figures in the field of music criticism. Not only did the latter dictate performance standards, it influenced the reception of music in a broader sense and, to a greater or lesser extent, played an active part in shaping mu-20 music criticism – yesterday and today sical culture. The articles by Slovene and foreign contributors alike clearly demonstrate the extremely important role played by music criticism in the past in practically all areas of musical life. The present discussion also looks at the current state of music criticism and its survival or opportunities for development in the future. It is an undeniable fact, given the increasing prevalence of the “tabloid” approach, that the space previously dedicated to music criticism in the media has shrunk. The predominance of brief information and pictorial material from the broader field of pop culture has, in most media, completely replaced more detailed consideration of more complex creative and performing phenomena in the field of serious music. A more in-depth analytical approach is still maintained to a limited extent by some mainstream media outlets and to a greater extent by certain specialised media, in particular those few national radio stations with arts programming that continue to operate. Yet the audience for these media is limited, while music criticism in the mainstream media is for the most part restricted to coverage of only the most prominent cultural events. In the face of the growing absence of music criticism, a question of great or indeed crucial importance inevitably raises itself for the field of music historiography: how will those who come after us be able to create a complete picture of the musical life of our present age or, to put it another way, what consequences will the absence of critical thought have on the development of art music in the future? One of the chief purposes of the present study is, then, to voice an appeal to preserve music criticism, along with criticism of other fields of art. The survival of artistic criticism is essential, not only for the insight it provides into individual artistic events, but above all for the critical reflection it offers on the life of society at large – something that is increasingly necessary in the present age. 21 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.23-33 Classical Music Criticism: An American Perspective Alex Ross Glasbeni kritik, New Yorker Music Critic, The New Yorker The American perspective on the future of music criticism is, to put it bluntly, bleak. In 1992, when I moved to New York and began to write about classical music, every major city newspaper had at least one writer covering the field full time. I would see four or five fellow critics at performances, dozens of them big premières. When William Bolcom’s opera McTeague had its premiere at the Lyric Opera of Chicago that year, one hundred and fifty critics were in attendance, having gathered for a professional conference.1 In the intervening years, the ranks of the profession have steadily dwin-dled, to the point that only five American newspapers have full-time classical critics on staff – this in a country with a population of three hundred thirty million.2 When we look at the population of classical critics working full time at national news magazines, we see an even grimmer picture: myself, alone. If the current trends continue, in twenty years’ time, or perhaps much sooner, the profession will be effectively defunct in this country. And classical music is hardly alone in witnessing a dying off of critics. Colleagues in other disciplines – dance, visual arts, books, even movies and pop music – report similar struggles. Over the past decade, dozens of arts critics have lost their jobs or been demoted to free-lance status. There is no 1 Edward Rothstein, “McTeague; A Musical Slice of Grim American Life,” New York Times, November 2, 1992. 2 Namely: Jeremy Eichler at the Boston Globe, Zachary Woolfe and Joshua Barone at the New York Times, Michael Andor Brodeur at the Washington Post, Mark Swed at the Los Angeles Times, and Joshua Kosman at the San Francisco Chronicle. 23 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today reason to believe that matters will soon improve. The problem goes deep, and it has nothing to do with how this or that zone of the arts is faring. It has to do with the very survival of journalism as a business. Some time ago, people stopped thinking of news as something for which they should have to pay. “Information wants to be free,” the slogan went. The drastic decline in revenue that has resulted from the falling off of subscriptions and news-stand purchases has caused cutbacks across the board. The wound was to a great extent self-inflected. When the Internet came along, many newspapers and magazines placed their “content” online free of charge, assuming that mobs of new readers would swoon over their offerings and subscribe. A battle was already lost when that word “content” entered circulation. In other words, the media voluntarily brought on itself the crisis that had involuntarily befallen the music business, when recordings were pirated through file-sharing. Print media pirated itself. The shift to digital publication has also introduced a tremendous-ly damaging factor known throughout the business as “clicks.” One could now measure, with alarming exactness, exactly how many people have read or look at a given story. The result, at many publications, is an overvalua-tion of those stories that get the most short-term attention. And once you accept the equation of popularity and value, the game is over for the performing arts. There is no longer any justification for giving space to classical music, jazz, dance, architecture, gallery shows, and any other artistic activity that fails to ignite mass enthusiasm. In a cultural-Darwinist world where only the buzziest survive, the arts section would consist solely of su-perhero-movie reviews, TV-show recaps, and instant-reaction think-pieces about pop superstars. Never mind that such entities hardly need coverage in established papers, having achieved market domination through social media. It’s the intellectual equivalent of a tax cut for the super-rich. In recent years, in my country, a certain consciousness has dawned of the dangers of clickbait journalism. The election of an incompetent, cor-rupt, and dangerous president in 2016 owed much to the catastrophic feedback loop of fake news and clickbait. Afterward, subscriptions to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other so-called “legacy” publications surged. Do these chastened content-consumers really want breezy chitchat on trending topics? Or do they trust that storied institutions will decide for themselves what merits attention? One lesson to be learned from the rise of Donald Trump is that the media should not bind itself blindly to what-24 classical music criticism: an american perspective ever moves the needle. It remains to be seen whether this lesson has fully sunk in. There seems to have been a fundamental shift in how we value culture. In a way, the marketplace is an ongoing election in which we vote, by means of our money, for what we like. By paying for it, we assign it value. In a socialist utopia, money would have nothing to do with aesthetic values, but the world is what it is. If, in this capitalist culture, we think that we should pay nothing, either for music or for writing, we are lowering our expectations; consciously or not, we are devaluing the work. If a piece of criticism is just one of a thousand links available for free at the touch of a button, how thoughtful can it be? If the complete works of Beethoven can be had in a box set for less than a hundred dollars, or heard for free on Spotify, how much are they really worth? And, of course, nothing is ever actually free. Someone is getting rich somewhere. Corporations that have figured how to “monetize” – another horrible word – the new reality, extracting profits from vast streaming catalogues. Superstar artists receive enough plays from streaming that they can augment their already enormous fortunes. The smaller entities – record labels, journals, presses, bookstores – struggle to stay afloat. At the same time, popular culture has almost wholly subsumed the nineteenth-century Romantic aesthetics that once elevated the position of classical music. Theodor W. Adorno, in a response to Walter Benjamin’s theory of the dissipating aura of bourgeois art, made the penetrating point that the newer cultural forms, such as the cinema, had their own version of aura, their own rituals of sacralization and pilgrimage. He wrote: “Wenn es einen auratischen Charakter gibt, dieser den Filmen im höchsten und freilich gerade bedenklichsten Maße eignet.”3 Consider the rites of mourning that have surrounded the deaths of David Bowie and Prince: as in the nineteenth century, the individual artist is seen as a vessel of the otherworldly, as a telephone to the beyond, in Nietzsche’s phrase. In the end, there was no loss of aura in the shift from a grand bourgeois culture to a mass culture, or indeed from a culture of live performance to a culture of reproduction. One can draw a straight line from the bourgeois cult of the solitary genius to the mass cult of the stadium, television, or YouTube celebrity. In both cases, a musical object radiates ritual power within a radically unequal capitalist society. Indeed, rising inequality within the domain of a pop-culture 3 Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1, part 3, eds. Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhäuser (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1991), 1004. 25 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today hegemony makes one wonder whether the two domains are in some way interdependent, despite the rhetoric of dissent arising from some sectors. The classical concert has become an increasingly singular phenomenon in modern life, one that leads us away from the culture of distraction and into a very different mode of paying attention. Thoughtful criticism can perform a similar function. As long as we have concerts and art exhibitions and films and books, we should have need for writing of substance as we prepare for these works or as we think back upon them. And to the extent that cultural choices are now being organized and controlled by algorithms, by a sophisticated averaging out of mass taste, the critic can serve as an anti-algorithm, as a wrench in the machine. We can point people in a different direction, we can speak up for idiosyncrasy, eccentricity, difficulty, overlooked pleasures. Journalistic criticism may have no practical future, but the function of criticism can be carried out by those working in a free-lance capacity, especially those who have positions in academ-ia and can write journalistically on the side. Encouraging in this respect is a new communicative urge among younger musicologists, who have embraced the practice of “public musicology.”4 They follow in the wake of the late musicologist Richard Taruskin, who wrote prolifically and brilliantly for The New Republic and The New York Times in the last years of the twentieth century and in the first years of the twenty-first.5 Even if the critic in the traditional sense dies off, criticism will undoubtedly continue. Permit me to insert a few autobiographical notes on how I conduct myself in this endangered but not quite extinct profession. I have been writing for The New Yorker since 1996. My principal responsibility is to write the magazine’s Musical Events column, which appears fourteen times a year. In planning the columns, I seek maximum variety: major orchestral and operatic events, smaller chamber-music or recital concerts, new-music concerts, early music, choral music, and so on. My role, as I see it, is not to respond overnight to musical events, in the style of a daily newspaper critic, but to step back and survey the entire field, intervening as a kind of color commentator. I attempt to assemble a portrait of the musical world piece by piece, in mosaic fashion. I alternate between major events at big institutions – the magazine wishes me to report regularly on the latest ups and downs of the Met and the New York Philharmonic – and the activities of 4 See: William Robin, “Public Musicology,” annotated syllabus, https://willrob-in251824868.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/musc-699p-syllabus.pdf. 5 See, among many other publications, Richard Taruskin, The Danger of Music and Other Anti-Utopian Essays (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009). 26 classical music criticism: an american perspective smaller groups, unknown young composers, enterprising projects in unlikely locations. For example, in June, 2017, I wrote about Renée Fleming and Alan Gilbert’s farewell appearances at the Met and the Philharmonic; in the same month, I went to Rangely, Colorado, to see a defunct water tank that has been converted into a hyper-resonant performance space.6 That zig-zag motion between the famous and the obscure exemplifies my mission. In addition to the columns, I have also undertaken a series of longer essays, generally running around five thousand words, as well as profiles of leading musicians and composers. The essays have often centered on major composers of the repertory, from Hildegard von Bingen to Morton Feld-man, with most of the familiar names appearing in between. My intention in these articles is both to provide a kind of general introduction for lay readers as well as to summarize recent developments in scholarship and interpretation for the benefit of those who follow the field more closely. The essays sometimes involve a fair degree of research, and I find myself in the fortunate position of being able to pursue these projects over the course of many months. In 2013, I published an article about the Afro-Swedish con-tralto Luranah Aldridge, daughter of the great African American tragedian Ira Aldridge; her name had almost vanished from history, and I was able to reassemble traces of her career, including her surprising relationship with the Wagner family and the Bayreuth Festival.7 The patient interest that my editors show in these undertakings – I must name with gratitude Daniel Zalewski and David Remnick – is something exceedingly rare in American journalism. At the outset of my career, I could look back on a rich history of American music criticism, extending up to the present day in the extraordinari-ly learned reviews of the English-born Andrew Porter, who wrote the New Yorker’s Musical Events column from 1972 to 1992. Colleagues in both England and America regarded him with awe: he heard everything, remembered all, brought to bear profound cultural knowledge, and cast his immense learning in an elegant, fluid style. His New Yorker columns were a mesmerizing fusion of criticism, scholarship, and cultural commentary. He would give the literary background of an opera libretto, delve into multiple editions of the score, and recount its performance history before proceed-6 Alex Ross, “Departures and Arrivals,” The New Yorker, July 3, 2017; Alex Ross, “Tank Music,” The New Yorker, July 24, 2017. 7 Alex Ross, “Othello’s Daughter,” The New Yorker, July 22, 2013. 27 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ing to the rendition at hand. A characteristic digression, from a column on Donizetti’s “Dom Sébastien”: Among the Scribe papers in Paris I discovered an affidavit to the effect that the composer had rewritten the baritone’s principal air, ‘Ô Lis-bonne,’ between the dress rehearsal and the first night … The next day, I found the original air – a beautiful piece – in the baritone’s partbook.8 Although some readers found these asides a little donnish, the dispensation of particulars achieved a sensuous flow: you could go swimming in Porter’s omniscience. And, when he got into the nitty-gritty of performance, he wrote with a newspaperman’s bluntness: “René Kol o is probably the best Siegfried around. The notes are all there, audible, agreeable in tone, if not exactly heroic. He looked good, if rather too tidily coiffed.”9 In contemporary music, Porter favored such modernist masters as Pierre Boulez, Elliott Carter, and Harrison Birtwistle, but he also wrote sympathetically of John Adams’s Nixon in China, Philip Glass’s Einstein on the Beach, and the songs of Ned Rorem. The other potent influence on American music journalism in the late twentieth century was the composer-critic Virgil Thomson, who wrote for the New York Herald Tribune from 1940 to 1962 and remained a mentor to younger writers until his death, in 1989. The co-creator, along with Ger-trude Stein, of two of the greatest American operas – Four Saints in Three Acts and The Mother of Us Al – Thomson took music very seriously, but he did not always speak about it in a serious tone, and he liked nothing better than to puncture the solemn cult that long ago arose around the principal figures in classical music. Thomson tore into the conventional wisdom of a middle-class public with unconcealed glee, killing one sacred cow after another. His début review for the Herald Tribune dismissed Sibelius’s Second Symphony as “vulgar, self-indulgent, and provincial beyond all description.”10 Toscanini was said to offer “a solid, expensive, luxury-product feel”; Vladimir Horowitz was “a master of musical distortion.”11 Shostakovich’s “Leningrad” Symphony “seems to have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the distracted.”12 A review of Jascha Heifetz ended thus: “Four-starred super-luxury hotels are a legitimate commerce. The fact 8 Andrew Porter, “The Tide of Pomp,” The New Yorker, April 16, 1984. 9 Andrew Porter, “Wagner Goes West,” The New Yorker, July 8, 1985. 10 Virgil Thomson, Music Chronicles, 1940–1954 (New York: Library of America, 2014), 10. 11 Ibid. , 61, 192. 12 Ibid., 108. 28 classical music criticism: an american perspective remains, however, that there is about their machine-tooled finish and empty elegance something more than just a trifle vulgar.”13 That the reader may happen to disagree with most or all of these assessments – that is certainly my own reaction – illustrates the important point that the critic’s task is not to fashion an opinion that represents the popular majority. What arrests the attention is the forcefulness with which these judgments are delivered and the knowledge in which they are grounded. The donnish Porter and the waspish Thomson were very different critics, but they had in common an enormous inborn authority. They did not speak down to their readers but addressed them as intellectual equals, capable of grasping sophisticated references and digesting complex argu-ments. Given the parlous state of modern journalism, such assumptions are now considerably riskier, but they are still worth holding up as models. Some readers will be well versed in classical music; others will know very little. The challenge is to navigate between these groups and to find a language that engages both at once. There is also an educational component to the profession. It is clear that classical music has an actual audience and a potential audience. A critic can draw new listeners in, give them a vocabulary for their unspoken but often very solid perceptions. Critics writing in general-interest publications are among the few people in the public eye who even mention classical music. Because the art form is for the most part shut out of the mainstream media, we have attained a peculiar and perhaps undeserved prominence that critics in other genres do not possess. Porter and Thomson also had in common an unswerving belief in the centrality of contemporary music. They set themselves against an American classical-music establishment that viewed the commissioning and performance of new music as an annoying duty to be dispatched as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. As a practicing composer, Thomson was maddened most of all by the degree to which concert programs had devolved into a fixed canon, which he famously named the “Fifty Pieces.” In a 1944 essay, he rails against not only the unchanging nature of that repertory but also the idea of the masterpiece itself. One passage is worth quoting at length: The enjoyment and understanding of music are dominated in a most curious way by the prestige of the masterpiece. Neither the theatre nor the cinema nor poetry nor narrative fiction pays allegiance to its ideal of excellence in the tyrannical way that music does. They recognize no unbridgeable chasm between “great work” and the rest of produc-13 Ibid. , 221. 29 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today tion. Even the world of art painting, though it is no less a victim than that of music to Appreciation rackets based on the concept of gilt-edged quality, is more penetrable to reason in this regard, since such values, or the pretenses about them advanced by investing collectors and mu-seums, are more easily unmasked as efforts to influence market prices. But music in our time (and in our country) seems to be committed to the idea that first-class work in composition is separable from the rest of music-writing by a distinction as radical as that recognized in theology between the elect and the damned. Or at the very least as rigorous an exclusion from glory as that which formerly marked the difference between Mrs. Astor’s Four Hundred and the rest of the human race. This snobbish definition of excellence is opposed to the classical concept of a Republic of Letters. It reposes, rather, on the theocratic idea that inspiration is less a privilege of the private citizen than of the ordained prophet. Its weakness lies in the fact that music, though it serves most becomingly as religion’s handmaiden, is not a religion. Music does not deal in general ideas of morality or salvation. It is an art. It expresses private sentiments through skill and sincerity, both of which last are a privilege, a duty, indeed, of the private citizen, and no monopoly of the prophetically inclined.14 With a slight hint of Marxist cultural theory – Thomson admired Hanns Eisler and read Adorno with interest – the critic lays out the fundamental problem at the heart of American classical music: its overweening venera-tion of a European heritage that the Europeans themselves had learned to treat more skeptically. In my own work, I have attempted to challenge at every turn the excessive dependence on the musical past, even as I venera-te its achievements. Thomson memorably defined criticism as “the only antidote we have to paid publicity.”15 Critics can push back against the power of the star system, which exercises its influence in the classical-music world as in every other cultural field, even if the sums of money changing hands are not comparable to what goes on in the pop world. Critics can encourage listeners to think for themselves and not to accept the consensus choices that are set before them by leading institutions and the agencies that feed the star system. The New York Times film critic A. O. Scott, in his 2017 manifesto Better Living Through Criticism, writes: 14 Ibid. , 278–9. 15 Virgil Thomson, Selected Letters of Virgil Thomson, eds. Tim Page and Vanessa Weeks Page (New York: Summit, 1988), 222. 30 classical music criticism: an american perspective As consumers of culture, we are lulled into passivity or, at best, prod-ded toward a state of pseudo-semi-self-awareness, encouraged either toward the defensive group identity of fanhood or a shallow, half-ironic eclecticism.16 The role of the critic, Scott says, is to resist the manufactured consensus – to interrogate the successful, to exalt the unknown, to argue for ambiguity and complexity. In the end, however, critics exercise authority through their style. Their language can heighten the stakes for performers and composers alike. For many decades, the conversation around classical music has been rather too placid and detached. A dry, reserved manner predominated, especially in newspapers. If we look into the archives of writing about music, we see a much more unabashed approach. About a century ago, the critic and author James Huneker had this to say about Chopin’s C-sharp-minor Prelude: “There is a flash of steel-gray, deepening into black, and then the vision vanishes as though some huge bird had plunged down through the blazing sunlight, leaving a color-echo in the void.”17 (That is from Huneker’s preface to the Schirmer edition of the Chopin Preludes, from which many American students learned the music.) A hundred years before that, the great critic, author, and composer E. T. A. Hoffmann summoned Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony: Glühende Strahlen schiessen durch dieses Reiches tiefe Nacht, und wir werden Riesenschatten gewahr, die auf- und abwogen, enger und enger uns einschliessen und alles in uns vernichten, nur nicht den Schmerz der unendlichen Sehnsucht.18 It is not a matter of reviving these historically dated styles. But one can seek a similar energy, a similar flair, in a contemporary voice. In 1942, at the height of the Second World War, the supreme American poet Wallace Stevens delivered a lecture entitled “The Noble Rider and the Sound of Words.” He asked: what is the use of art, of poetry, at this fright-ening time in history, when it seems as though all luxuries must fall away? He quoted Shakespeare’s Sonnet 65: “How with this rage shall beauty hold 16 A. O. Scott, Better Living Through Criticism: How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty, and Truth (New York: Penguin, 2017), 10. 17 James Huneker, “The Preludes,” in Frédéric Chopin, Complete Works for the Pianoforte, Book Nine: Preludes, ed. Raphael Joseffy (New York: Schirmer, 1915), v. 18 E. T. A. Hoffmann, Schriften zur Musik, Nachlese (Munich: Winkler-Verlag, 1963), 36. 31 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today a plea? ” He might as well have been talking about music, about the use of music, or even about criticism, the use of criticism. This is the answer that he gave: It is hard to think of a thing more out of time than nobility. Looked at plainly it seems false and dead and ugly [. .] something that was noble in its day, grandeur that was, the rhetorical once. But as a wave is a force and not the water of which it is composed, which is never the same, so nobility is a force and not the manifestations of which it is composed, which are never the same. [. .] It is not an artifice that the mind has added to human nature. It is a violence from within that protects us from a violence without. It is the imagination pressing back against the pressure of reality. It seems, in the last analysis, to have something to do with our self-preservation; and that, no doubt, is why the expression of it, the sound of its words, helps us to live our lives.19 Those last sentences come close to articulating the philosophy that I pursue in my own work, even if I am always doomed to fall far short of it. Bibliography Literature Benjamin, Walter. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1, part 3, edited by Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhäuser, 1004. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1991. Hoffmann, E. T. A. Schriften zur Musik, Nachlese. Munich: Winkler-Verlag, 1963. Huneker, James. “The Preludes.” In Frédéric Chopin, Complete Works for the Pianoforte, Book Nine: Preludes, edited by Raphael Joseffy. New York: Schirmer, 1915. Robin, William. “Public Musicology,” annotated syllabus. https://willrob-in251824868.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/musc-699p-syllabus.pdf. Scott, A. O. Better Living Through Criticism: How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty, and Truth. New York: Penguin, 2017. Stevens, Wallace. The Necessary Angel: Essays on Reality and the Imagination. New York: Vintage Books, 1951. Taruskin, Richard. The Danger of Music and Other Anti-Utopian Essays. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. Thomson, Virgil. Selected Letters of Virgil Thomson. Edited by Tim Page and Vanessa Weeks Page. New York: Summit, 1988. 19 Wallace Stevens, The Necessary Angel: Essays on Reality and the Imagination (New York: Vintage Books, 1951), 35. 32 classical music criticism: an american perspective Thomson, Virgil. Music Chronicles, 1940–1954. New York: Library of America, 2014. Periodicals Porter, Andrew. “The Tide of Pomp.” The New Yorker, April 16, 1984. Porter, Andrew. “Wagner Goes West.” The New Yorker, July 8, 1985. Ross, Alex. “Othello’s Daughter.” The New Yorker, July 22, 2013. Ross, Alex. “Departures and Arrivals.” The New Yorker, July 3, 2017. Ross, Alex. “Tank Music.” The New Yorker, July 24, 2017. Rothstein, Edward. “McTeague: A Musical Slice of Grim American Life.” New York Times, November 2, 1992. 33 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.35-51 Innovation, Art, Society, and Life: Deliberations on Music Criticism’s Past, Presence and Future Susanne Kogler Univerza Karla in Franca v Gradcu Karl-Franzens-Univesity Graz By the time of the controversy between Giovanni Maria Artusi and Claudio Monteverdi, as well as in the Querel es des anciens et des modernes, and up to the aesthetical debates in the 19th and 20th centuries, critical disputes concerning music have dealt in particular with the question of artistic innovation. Whereas initially it was mainly theoreticians and composers involved, during the 19th and 20th centuries philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche or Theodor W. Adorno prominently came up. And it is their texts in particular which make clear that deliberations on music are always motivated by social values and certain attitudes not only towards art, but towards life in general. The danger of an ideological usurpation of music and its critique became dangerously evident during the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.1 Today music criticism seems to be endangered for different reasons. On the one hand the ongoing transformation of public media deeply affects traditional cultural practices; on the other hand, nobody seems to be convinced any more of an obligation to fight for the “truth” of an aesthetical position or a certain form of art.2 In addition, high quality pub-1 For an excellent overview see: “Criticism,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 5, ed. Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan, 1980), 670–98, resp. Grove Music online. 2 For this aspect see amongst others: Susanne Kogler, “‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Dichtung’ als Paradigmen der Kritik: Robert Schumann und Hugo Wolf,” in KünstlerKritiker. Zum Verhältnis von Produktion und Kritik in bildender Kunst und Musik, ed. Michael Custodis et al. (Saarbrücken: Pfau, 2006), 28–43. 35 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today lic debates appear to be generally in decline. Thus, the problematic situation of music criticism seems to correspond with a broader crisis of critical thinking and Western culture. Taking this view as a point of departure, I will first illuminate the socio-political dimensions inherent in music criticism with the help of historical and topical examples. Second, I will discuss which role music criticism might play and which forms it might adopt in our days and in the future. Historical Deliberations What is the innovation that critics fight about? If it were about musical structures and purely musical and artistic ideas only, it would not be made so much fuss about, we might suspect. Indeed, as different studies show, the organization of art has always been related to the social organization of life. A very illuminating example amongst others is the connection between the quarrel of the Buffonists in the 18th century and the French Revolution. Even if the debate concerned the primacy of melody or harmony, it can be traced back to ideas regarding how people should live together. Whereas harmony can be connected to a social model that involves many voices fitting together in a sort of democratic order, the idea of melody as an accompanied leading voice is connected to the idea of an origin which constitutes the basis of one unique voice commanding the whole society. In 1767 Rousseau published an article entitled “Unité de Melodie” where the term unité is used in this sense. His idea of regaining an ideal origin is bound to the idea of society as one collective body with many limbs, as he stated in Contrat soci a l. According to Rousseau all members speak one original language.3 The songs of the French Revolution represent this unitedness musically. The Marseillaise is the most famous of them. Its melody prepared the soldiers to follow one original inner voice that should at the same time be the shared basis of the new state. In 1840, Robert Schuman cited the hymn in his song Die beiden Grenadiere op. 94 no.1, which is based on a text by Heinrich Heine. The melody which originally should represent the strength and the loyalty of the French soldiers, is ironized through a grotesque combination with Heine’s words.4 3 Cf. Hans Georg Nicklaus, “Rousseau und die Verurteilung der Mehrstimmigkeit,” in Zwischen Rauschen und Offenbarung. Zur Kultur- und Mediengeschichte der Stimme, ed. Friedrich Kittler et al. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002), 161. 4 Cf. amongst others: Markus Winkler, “‘Die Grenadiere’. Heine und Schumann,” in Übergänge: zwischen Künsten und Kulturen. Internationaler Kongress zum 150. Todesjahr von Heinrich Heine und Robert Schumann, ed. Henriette Herwig (Stuttgart: 36 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. Regarding the 18th and 19th centuries we may also speak of a dialectical relationship between the social and the aesthetic dimension of music criticism.5 Depending on the readership in the different journals, the critics focused either on the one or the other side. Some Case Studies E. T. A. Hoffmann If we look at critiques written by one of the most famous critics in history, the composer and poet E. T. A. Hoffmann, we can also find some characteristic features which show the interconnection between art and life that he was fighting for. Concerning the Ouverture à grand Orchestre, “du jeune Henri Chasse” par Étienne-Nicolas Méhul, published in Leipzig with Breitkopf und Härtel, his ideals of what a composer should do stand out: as Méhul does, the composer should dominate the fantasy, the imagination of the audience in such a way that a certain image taken from life would be projected directly in front of the inner eye. The effect aimed at is for the audience to become directly involved in the colorful chaos of fantastic events. The music willingly reveals its secrets to the composer; he [. .] thereby dominates the listener’s imagination, so that at his call a certain picture from life appears before the eyes of the spirit, and he is irresisti-bly drawn into the colorful melee of fantastic appearances. [. .] Melody, choice of instruments, harmonic structure, everything must work together, and it would be a foolish delusion if one wanted to achieve that purpose, to have a definite effect on the imagination, by imitating individual natural sounds without paying attention to the whole.6 Metzler, 2007), 275–88; resp. Bernhard R. Appel, “Die ‘Marseillaise’ bei Heinrich Heine und Robert Schumann,” in Übergänge: zwischen Künsten und Kulturen. Internationaler Kongress zum 150. Todesjahr von Heinrich Heine und Robert Schumann, ed. Henriette Herwig (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2007), 289–304. 5 Cf. Ulrich Tadday, Christoph Flamm, and Peter Wicke, “Musikkritik,” in MGG, ed. Laurenz Lütteken (Kassel, Stuttgart, New York: s. n., 2016–2021). 6 “Dem wahren Komponisten enthüllt die Musik willig ihre Geheimnisse; er […] beherrscht damit die Fantasie des Zuhörers, so daß auf seinen Ruf diesem ein bestimmtes Bild aus dem Leben vor die Augen des Geistes tritt, und er unwiderstehlich hinein-gezogen wird in das bunte Gewühl fantastischer Erscheinungen. Melodie, Wahl der Instrumente, harmonische Struktur, alles muß da zusammenwirken, und es wäre ein törichter Wahn, wenn man durch die Nachahmung einzelner Naturlaute ohne Beachtung des Ganzen jenen Zweck, bestimmt auf die Fantasie zu wirken, erreichen wollte. ” E. T. A. Hoffmann, “Ouverture à grande Orchestre, ‘du jeune Henri Chasse’ par F. 37 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Art thus functions as a bridge between the merely banal, daily world and the fantastic world. When doing so the music transcends so called tonal painting which is imitation of nature only and effects imagination directly.7 As the last passage of the quotation shows, for Hoffmann it is necessary that the artist is a good craftsman and knows his métier well. As a consequence, for Hoffmann it is also important to demonstrate the quality of the works he has considered successful through analytic remarks describing dimensions of the musical texture such as harmony, melody, the use of instruments etc. The poetic effect is based on the rational but poetically inspired use of musical means. Hoffmann is convinced that the effect of a well-made music would not only be felt by himself, but by everybody who is in general capable of letting himself be touched by music: Without at least knowing the composer’s intention beforehand, every listener whom the music is at all only capable of seizing will be transported by the overture into the joyful tumult of merry hunters: this Rez. boldly dares to assert.8 A vivid description of the scenery painted in music follows. It is at the same time a poetic description of the effect of the music on Hoffmann, of Hofmann’s personal musical experience: The royal stag leaps out of a deep thicket, pursued, attacked by the hounds raging with hunting lust; the hunters rush after it on snorting horses; all at once the animal has disappeared, the hounds have lost the scent; they creep around searching and sniffing, the hunters keep still; then the hounds strike again, the animal sets over stone and bush, the horns sound, the hunters catch up with it, and merry fanfares announce the victory. All of this comes out in the most vivid colors - a proof of Méhul. Chez Breitkopf et Härtel à Leipsic,” in Die Schriften über Musik, in Dichtungen und Schriften.Gesamtausgabe in 15 Bänden, 12. Band, ed. Walther Harich (Weimar, Lichtenstein, 1924), 209. 7 For Hoffmann on Méhul see amongst others: Anja Pohsner, “‘Wenn ich von mir selbst abhinge, würd’ ich Componist …’ Die Umwege des Musikers E. T. A. Hoffmann. Wechselwirkungen innerhalb seines musikalischen und literarischen Werkes” (Univ. Diss., Heidelberg, 1999), 85–6. 8 “Ohne im mindestens die Absicht des Komponisten vorher zu wissen, wird jeder Zuhö- rer, den die Musik überhaupt nur zu ergreifen vermag, durch die Ouvertüre in das fro-he Getümmel lustiger Jäger versetzt werden: dieses getraut sich Rez. keck zu behaupten. ” Hoffmann, “Ouverture à grande Orchestre,” 210. 38 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. how correctly the composer chose the means for the purpose once set, and how he knew how to hold the whole together in all its parts.9 At the end of the poetic description, Hoffmann again underscores that the composer was able to choose the musical means correctly. The impact of the music thus depends on the composer’s knowledge and mastery and results directly therefrom. In the part of the text which then follows, Hoffmann even uses excerpts from the score to demonstrate his views and to convince his readers.10 We may therefore conclude that despite all romantic poetry, the critic argues rationally combining rational and analytic means with the reflection and description of his subjective impressions and aesthetic experience. By doing so he becomes a model for later philosophers and critics as prominent as Th. W. Adorno, for example. Another text taken from Hofmann’s writings shows how he operates in the case that he is not convinced by the piece even if it’s a composition by a very well-known and otherwise appreciated composer, even appreciated by Hoffmann himself. An exemple for such a critique is the text concerning the “Grande Sonate pour le Pianoforte comp. - - par J.G. Reichardt, Maître de Chapelle de S. M. le roi de Prusse à Leipsic, chez Breitkopf et Härtel.” Right at the beginning the author makes clear that the quality of the composition he is writing about, from his point of view, is not at all comparable to that of other pieces by Reichardt. In the following he describes how Reichardt’s genius was capable to write impressionable music characterized by deeply expressed and heartfelt sensations, by, in all respects, even in the highest, true declamation, by a genius-like understanding of the most impressive musical means. In genres such as a simple lied or even a gorgeous opera, Reichardt’s music presented both every detail, as well as the entire character of a given poem in an emphatic way. As a consequence, he succeeded in touch-ing every mind and inspiring it to emphatically engage with the music. 9 “Aus tiefem Dickicht springt der königliche Hirsch hervor, verfolgt, angefallen von den in Jagdlust wütenden Hunden; auf schnaubenden Rossen stürmen die Jäger nach; auf einmal ist das Tier verschwunden, die Hunde haben die Fährte verloren; sie schleichen suchend und schnuppernd umher, die Jäger halten sich still; da schlagen die Hunde aufs Neue an, über Stein und Busch setzt das Tier, die Hörner schallen, die Jäger erei-len es, und lustige Fanfaren verkündigen den Sieg. Alles dieses tritt in den lebendigs-ten Farben heraus – ein Beweis, wie richtig der Komponist zu dem einmal vorgesetzten Zweck die Mittel wählte, und wie er das Ganze in allen seinen Teilen zusammenzuhal-ten verstand. ” Ibid. 10 Ibid., 210–13. 39 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today As a precondition for these achievements Hoffmann considers a balanced relationship between rationality and fantasy. Concluding these considerations, Hoffmann states that Reichardt, when writing a sonata, missed the support of poetry, which proved to be essential for him. Only real heroes of music are capable of writing autonomous, instrumental music, he stresses. For this task, not only are insights into the artistic and harmonious structures necessary, but also a perfect understanding of the individuality of each instrument, in order to use it according to its highest potential. These requirements concern in particular the piano, which had recently undergone so many changes, it could be considered a completely novel instrument. What Hoffmann reproaches in the following is not being conscious of these technical innovations by comparing Reichardt with someone lost on an island, and thus isolated and not in connection with current artistic practices anymore: It could be imagined that a brave piano player and composer from the time of Bache, Wolfe, etc., by some coincidence would be transported to an island (in the Indian archipelago or elsewhere), while saving his grand piano and Sebastian Bach in solitude. Now he diligently composed sonatas and toccatas, entirely in the artful, but with regard to the splen-dor, which now came from the increased virtuosity of the players and the magnificent instruments, which replaced those clattering, clanging pianos, poor manner, as it existed at that time, and would, as a passing ship took him up, bring over the fruit of his labor. The appearance of his works would be, if not exactly pleasing, yet certainly strange [. .].11 With this comparison Hoffmann becomes ironic, but he doesn’t stop here. Rather he accuses Reichardt of not even having known the historical innovations concerning his instrument, the piano. 11 “Es ließe sich denken, dass ein wackrer Klavierspieler und Komponist aus der Zeit der Bache, Wolfe etc. durch irgendeinen Zufall auf eine Insel (etwa im indischen Archip-elagus oder sonst) verschlagen würde, indessen seinen Flügel und den Sebastian Bach in die Einsamkeit hinüberrettete. Nun komponierte er fleißig Sonaten und Tokkaten, ganz in der kunstvollen, aber rücksichtlich des Glanzes, der nun aus der gestiegenen Virtuosität der Spieler und dem herrlichen Instrumente, das jene klappernden, klir-renden Flügel ersetzte, hervorgegangen, ärmlichen Manier, wie sie damals bestand, und brächte, als ein vorbeisegelndes Schiff in aufnahm, die Frucht seiner Arbeit herü- ber. Die Erscheinung seiner Werke würde, wenn auch nicht gerade erfreulich, doch gewiss merkwürdig sein […].” Cf. E. T. A. Hoffmann, “Grande Sonate pour le Pianoforte comp. - - par J.G Reichardt, Maitre de Chapelle de S.M. le roi de Prusse. à Leipsic, chez Breitkopf et Härtel,” in Die Schriften über Musik, in Dichtungen und Schriften. Gesamtausgabe in 15 Bänden, 12. Band, ed. Walther Harich (Weimar, Lichtenstein, 1924), 335. 40 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. Mr. R. was indeed on an island, but if not without a grand piano, certainly without Sebastian Bach. Not even historically does he seem to have been aware of the tremendous progress that was made in composition for this instrument after Mozart and Beethoven had given pi-anoforte playing a completely new, high, powerful impetus; otherwise, he would not have composed the present sonata, or at least not have brought it to a large audience. Without Seb. Bach, Mr. R. was on the island, because otherwise he would have known how to give his work some interest, at least with regard to the harmonic structure.12 Finally, before explaining his views in detail on the basis of the score, Hoffmann stresses his obligation to charge severely according to his insights and the truth. In addition, he explains his goal to indicate to the composer which paths he should follow in the future, namely singing “some jovial and glorious lied.” In conclusion, as the critic’s view is concerned, we can say that Hoffmann judges the pieces he writes about in detail and with respect to their overall effect. He speaks at the same time as both an artist and a specialist, and as a part of the public, as a listener. His main concern is the effect of music, which should have an impact on the audience and thus change the listener’s daily life through establishing a pathway to the land of fantasy.13 Claude Debussy If we compare now briefly Hoffmann’s critiques with the critical writings of Claude Debussy entitled Monsieur Croche, we will notice a totally different attitude: Whereas Hofmann is writing emphatically from the standpoint of a critic, Debussy gives the impression that he does not want to consider himself a professional critic at all. Rather he is skeptical about criticism it-12 “Herr R. befand sich in der Tat auf einer Insel, aber wenn auch nicht ohne Flügel, doch gewiß ohne Sebastian Bach. Nicht einmal historisch scheinen ihm nämlich die unge-heuren Fortschritte bekannt geworden zu sein, die, nachdem Mozart und Beethoven dem Pianofortespiel überhaupt einen ganz neuen, hohen, mächtigen Schwung gegeben hatten, in der Komposition für dies Instrument gemacht wurden; denn sonst wür-de er die vorliegende Sonate nicht komponiert, wenigstens nicht ins große Publikum gebracht haben. Ohne Seb. Bach befand sich aber Herr R. deshalb auf der Insel, weil er sonst doch wenigstens rücksichtlich des harmonischen Gefüges seinem Werke einiges Interesse zu geben gewusst hätte. ” Ibid., 335–6. 13 For a more detailed view on Reichardt’s aesthetics and Hoffmann’s critique see: Stefan Keym, “Musik von einer einsamen Insel? Reichardts Grande Sonate f-Moll und die Kritik von E. T. A. Hoffmann,” in Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752–1814). Zwischen Anpassung und Provokation, ed. Manfred Beetz et al. (Halle/Saale: s. n., 2003), 145–62. 41 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today self. Several times he stresses that he does not want to write and behave like a critic. By doing so he criticizes the critics of his time and the genre of critique itself. Correspondingly he is skeptical about the classical genre of the symphony, which he considers to be outdated. It is not astonishing that a symphony composed by M. Witkowski, which Debussy wrote about does not find his approval: A symphony by Mr. G.-M. Witkowski was received with enthusiasm. It seemed to me that, since Beethoven, the proof of the uselessness of the symphony was made. Also, with Schumann and Mendelssohn, it is only a respectful repetition of the same forms with already less force.14 His remarks on composers he considers as geniuses and their “holy works” show that from his point of view, a genius does not need any approval by a critic. “I will speak very little about works consecrated, either by success or by tradition; once by al , Meyerbeer, Thalberg, Reyer ... are men of genius, it does not matter otherwise.”15 What a composer should develop, according to him, is a distinguishable, individual handwriting. If the influence of another genius is discernible, as for instance with Schumann’s Faust or the Ouverture Le roi Lear by A. Savard, he is not interested in the piece. At the end Debussy criticizes the institution of the concert as a whole by ironizing the behavior of a singer presenting orchestral songs by Fritz Delius and the way in which the audience demonstrates approval. It was ineffable as anything, this music! It was sung by Miss C. Andray-Fairfax with a dreamy and melancholy voice. Miss Andray-Fairfax devised, while the music was lamenting, a game of comparison between the audience and the chandelier, which turned, I must say, entirely to the glory of the chandelier. This charming game seemed to defend the delicacy of the melodies from the barbarous noise of the bravos.16 14 “Une symphonie de M. G.-M. Witkowski fut accueillie avec enthousiasme. Il me semblait que, depuis Beethoven, la preuve de l’inutilité de la symphonie était faite. Aus-si bien, chez Schumann et Mendelssohn n’est-elle plus qu’une répétition respectueuse des même formes avec déjà moins de force. ” Cf. Claude Debussy, “Le ‘Faust’ de Schumann. – Ouverture pour ‘Le Roi Lear’ d’A. Savard. – Le troisième acte de ‘Siegfried’. – Une Symphonie de Witkowski,” in: Claude Debussy, Monsieur Croche et autres écrits, ed. Francois Lesure (Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 25. 15 “Je parlerai fort peu des œuvres consacrées, soit par le succès, soit par la tradition ; une fois par toutes, Meyerbeer, Thalberg, Reyer … sont des hommes de génie, ça n’a pas autrement d’importance. ” Ibid., 24. 16 “C’était ineffable comme tout, cette musique ! Elle fut chantée par Mlle C. Andray-Fairfax avec une voix rêveuse et mélancoliquement distinguée. Mlle Andray-Fairfax imagina, pendant que se lamentait la musique, un jeu de comparaison entre le public et le 42 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. Disregarding the political background and the specific idea of the new that emerges here, with Debussy we see that the function of the critic within the bourgeois cultural life gets precarious. Taking his standpoint as an example we can thus conclude that at the beginning of the twentieth century art was considered able to express itself sufficiently without any help and professional mediation. The gap between the artist and the bourgeois institutions appears to grow, and in the course of this development, the gap between art and those same institutions also widens. The comments on the reception of the Dreigroschenoper by Brecht and Weill also underscore this process. Bertolt Brecht explained in a self-interview in 1933, from his point of view, what caused the success of the Dreigroschenoper (Threepenny Opera): I’m afraid all the things I didn’t care for: the romantic attitude, the love story, the musical. When the Threepenny Opera had been successful, they made a film out of it. For the film, they took everything that I had mocked in the play, the romanticism, the sentimentality, etc., and left out the mockery. There the success was even greater.17 What was important for him was the critique of society inherent in the piece: I had tried to show that the world of ideas and the emotional life of the street bandits bear an immense resemblance to the world of ideas and the emotional life of the solid citizen.18 Art critique becomes cultural critique. It might seem astonishing, that the critic now seems to change sides and is defending novel artistic developments against a more traditionally oriented society. Theodor W. Adorno writes in 1929: lustre, qui tourna, je dois le dire, tout à la gloire du lustre. Ce jeu charmant semblait défendre la délicatesse des mélodies du bruit barbare des bravos. ” Cf. Ibid., 27. 17 “Ich fürchte, all das, worauf es mir nicht ankam: die romantische Haltung, die Liebes-geschichte, das Musikalische. Als die Dreigroschenoper Erfolg gehabt hatte, machte man einen Film daraus. Man nahm für den Film all das, was ich in dem Stück verspot-tet hatte, die Romantik, die Sentimentalität usw., und ließ den Spott weg. Da war der Erfolg noch größer.” Bertolt Brecht, “Autobiographische Notizen 1921 bis Juni 1938,” in Bertolt Brecht: Werke. Große kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe, vol. 26: Journale 1, ed. Werner Hecht et al. (Berlin, Frankfurt: Suhrkampf Verlag, 1913– 1941), 299. 18 “Ich hatte zu zeigen versucht, dass die Ideenwelt und das Gefühlsleben der Straßen-banditen ungemein viel Ähnlichkeit mit der Ideenwelt und dem Gefühlsleben des soli-den Bürgers haben.” Ibid., 299. 43 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Society has many ways to deal with inconvenient works. It can ignore them, it can critically destroy them, it can swallow them so that nothing remains. The Threepenny Opera has whetted its appetite for the last. Meanwhile, there is still the question of how the meal will be digest-ed by her. For even as a means of enjoyment, the Threepenny Opera remains dangerous: no ideology of community occurs there, neither materially nor musically, since nothing noble and transfiguring is set as collective art, but rather the abrogation of art is suspended, in order to find the sound for the abrogation of society. And those who here interpret the thrown-off, collective contents are quite lonely, only with themselves; perhaps they only like it so much because they can laugh at their loneliness like that of a clown. With no melody of the Threepenny Opera reconstruction can be played; its hollowed-out simplicity is nothing less than classical. It would rather be played in bars, whose half-light abruptly illuminates it, than sung in the meadow. It is utility music, which today, since one is in the safe, can be enjoyed as a ferment, but not used to cover what is. Where it turns from interpretation into direct language, it openly demands: ‘For it is cold. Consider the darkness and the great cold.’19 This change in the critic’s view can be explained by societal and political changes. In the same year in the Völkische Beobachter published in Munich on July 23rd one could read with respect to the premiere of the Dreigroschenoper: 19 “Viele Wege hat die Gesellschaft, mit unbequemen Werken fertig zu werden. Sie k ann sie ignorieren, sie kann sie kritisch vernichten, sie kann sie schlucken, so, daß nichts mehr übrig bleibt. Die Dreigroschenoper hat ihr zum Letzten Appetit gemacht. Indessen, es ist noch die Frage, wie ihr die Mahlzeit bekommt. Denn noch als Genuss-mittel bleibt die Dreigroschenoper gefährlich: keine Gemeinschaftsideologie kommt da vor, stofflich nicht und auch musikalisch nicht, da nichts Edles und Verklärendes als Kollektivkunst gesetzt, sondern der Abhub von Kunst aufgehoben wird, dem Abhub der Gesellschaft den Laut zu finden. Und wer hier die abgeworfenen, kollektiven Gehalte deutet, ist durchaus einsam, nur bei sich selber; vielleicht gefällt es ihnen nur darum so gut, weil sie seine Einsamkeit wie die eines Clowns belachen können. Mit keiner Melodie der Dreigroschenoper kann man Wiederaufbau spielen; ihre ausgehöhlte Einfachheit ist nichts weniger als klassisch. Eher könnte sie schließlich doch in Bars gespielt werden, deren Halbdunkel sie jäh erleuchtet, als auf der Wiese gesungen. Es ist Gebrauchsmusik, die heut, da man im sicheren ist, zwar als Ferment genossen, nicht aber gebraucht werden kann, das zu verdecken, was ist. Wo sie aus Deutung in un-mittelbare Sprache umschlägt, fordert sie offen: ‘Denn es ist kalt. Bedenkt das Dunkel und die große Kälte.’” Theodor W. Adorno, “Zur Dreigroschenoper,” in Musikalische Schriften V [Ges. Schriften 18], ed. Rolf Tiedemann (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1970), 539–40. 44 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. The muck swamp particularly concentrated in some corner of every big city can be just good enough for the cinematic romance of climbing max culture, and for the rest, however, is really just a matter of police street cleaning procedure.20 Criticism Today As we have seen, music criticism is a phenomenon strongly linked to the bourgeoisie. Thus, in the late 20th century music criticism faced a decline which, to a certain extent, was due to the decreasing importance of classical music and its institutions for a broader public that is no longer a bourgeois one. Despite this pessimism critics are still present today. And they are still the object of artist’s anger as a recent startling event in Germany shows when a performer, the director of the ballet in Hannover, attacked a FAZ-critic, Wiebke Hüster, with dog poop.21 Politer is the attack by Hugo Wolf, who in the well-known song Abschied based on a text by Eduard Mörike expressed the artists’ anger at critics ironically. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind that the critic’s description in the song follows antise-mitic stereotypes, as does Wagner’s portrait of Beckmesser.22 But how do successful critics fulfill their role today? I’d like to take Wilhelm Sinkovicz, Austrian’s most prominent critic as an example, who writes for the traditionally conservative newspaper Die Presse. He comments regularly on all aspects of the classical music market: he reviews CDs, writes concert critiques, and comments on public debates in the cultural life, such as the development of opera staging, for instance. His voice serves a well-informed, interested public. According to this mission he occasionally organizes musical saloons where he presents the upcoming highlights of the cultural life in Vienna. By doing so he also takes up some concerns characteristic for musicology, such as promoting compositions by 20 “Der in irgendeinem Winkel jeder Großstadt besonders konzentrierte Drecksumpf kann für die Kinoromantik der Klettermaxekultur gerade noch gut genug sein und ist im übrigen aber wirklich nur eine Angelegenheit des polizeilichen Straßenreini-gungsverfahrens. ” Völkischer Beobachter, July 23, 1929 [München]. Cf. Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill, “Die Dreigroschenoper” (Kammerspiele der Josefstadt, Programm 2021/22), 12. 21 Vgl. Thomas Kramar, “Die fäkale Attacke eines Ballettdirektors auf eine Kritikerin lässt sich nicht rechtfertigen. Auch nicht durch unfaire Kritiken. Auch wer ‘Schas’ schreibt, soll nicht gezüchtigt warden,” Die Presse, February 15, 2023, 17. 22 On antisemitism in Vienna around 1900 see: Kay M. Knittel, Seeing Mahler: Music and the Language of Antisemitism in Fin-de-Siecle Vienna (Burlington: Ashgate, 2010). 45 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today women composers through talking to musicians who presented a topical CD featuring music written by women, for instance. The difference is that he always acts as an advocate of good music – from the listener’s viewpoint. Concerning women composers for instance he writes: You almost never hear music by women in operas and concert halls unjustly: German cellist Raphaela Gromes has tracked down women composers who have been neglected for centuries. Her album proves how many women have composed and above all: how good their music is.23 In an article on the occasion of the death of Friedrich Cerha this can also be observed, when he judges the quality of Cerha’s compositions by distinguishing them from other types of new music that do not find the critic’s approval. With respect to Cerha’s Baal he wrote: Cerha had indeed opened the ears of music lovers with this coup. The so-called New Music had lost its threatening potential; from now on, people again followed with interest what the composers had to offer in the way of novelties. [. .] Cerha had succeeded in conveying to listeners that his works, which were always highly complex, were after all comparatively ‘simple’ to decipher.24 This is the position of friend of music, der Musikfreund, the critical consumer who wants to attend good performances and listen to interesting works according to his educated taste. In the end with critics such as Sinkovicz it is still a bourgeois position that appears to have survived until today, even if it is more an exception than the norm and does only cover the interests of a small public, which even gets smaller and smaller. The criterion behind his positive evaluation of Cerha is a well-known one going back to the 18th century: only if the composer manages to find the right balance 23 “Fast nie hört man Musik von Frauen in den Opern und Konzerthäusern zu Unrecht: die deutsche Cellistin Raphaela Gromes hat Komponistinnen aufgestöbert, die seit Jahrhunderten vernachlässigt wurden. Ihr Album beweist, wie viele Frauen komponiert haben und vor allem: wie gut deren Musik ist.” Cf. Wilhelm Sinkovicz, “Die vergessenen Komponistinnen,” Die Presse am Sonntag, February 12, 2023, 42–3. 24 “Tatsächlich hatte Cerha mit diesem Coup den Musikfreunden die Ohren geöffnet. Die sogenannte Neue Musik hatte ihr Bedrohungspotential verloren, Hinfort verfolgte man wieder mit Interesse, was die Komponisten an Novitäten anzubieten hatten. [...] Cerha war es gelungen, den Hörern zu vermitteln, seine immer hochkomplexen Werke seien ja doch vergleichsweise ‘einfach’ zu entschlüsseln. ” Cf. Wilhelm Sinkovicz, “Friedrich Cerha: Wiener Avantgarde-Urgründe,” Die Presse, February 15, 2023, 17. 46 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. between tradition and innovation, can musical novelties be accepted by a broader public.25 As we may read in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, musicology is considered to profit from the decline of criticism by taking on “some of the broader ambitions that once were the province of music criticism.”26 But is it really musicology which should adopt the task of criticism? Recently, Frank Hentschel explored whether scientific goals necessarily go hand in hand with evaluations. According to him, we have to differenti-ate between unavoidable evaluations which do not do any harm to scientific objectivity, and a careless attitude that does no longer aspire to scientific objectivity - under the pretext that it is impossible to be objective anyhow. From Hentschel’s viewpoint it is the task of science to remain as independent and objective as possible.27 We can find a similar position when the question of the political impact of science is discussed in a more general framework. Recently, in the journal Forschung and Lehre for example, an author pointed to the dangers of an outward political engagement of scientists on social media, which would compromise science’s standing and credibility.28 Nevertheless, it seems to be important to discuss the quality of art and its role for today’s society. And it is science which might work on aesthetic criteria and different types of judgement in order to provide information which such a discussion could be built on. With respect to the situation in art, Marc Jimenez stressed the need for theories of modern art that help to understand the new relationships between art, institution, the work of art, and the public. Only with such information, an artistic creation might be defended that is not only determined by the art market, he writes.29 This position seems to correspond with the attitude that many artists expect from themselves today, namely a critical position towards society 25 Cf. amongst others: Michael Heinemann, “Kritik. Emanzipation des Hörers im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Kleine Geschichte der Musik, ed. Michael Heinemann (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2013), 145–57. 26 Anon., “Criticism,” 698. 27 Cf. Frank Hentschel, “Zur Rolle der Wertung in der Musikhistoriographie,” in Musik – Politik – Gesellschaft. Michael Walter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Kordula Knaus and Susanne Kogler (Berlin: Metzler, 2023), 339–58. 28 Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, “Problematisches Phänomen? – Zur Politisierung von Wissenschaft durch Social Media,” Forschung und Lehre 30, no. 2 (2023): 92–3. 29 Marc Jimenez, La querelle de l’art contemporain (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), 9–37. 47 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today and towards art itself,30 even if it is no longer the only and dominating one.31 Such a critical position is also requested from the critic who becomes in a way the artist’s partner. The art historian, curator and critic Marie de Brugerolle for instance, Professor at the Ecole des beaux arts à Lyon, establish-es a dialogue with the artists whose works she was interested in.32 By doing so she becomes a precious counterpart for them. Criticism in such a sense would provide an alternative to the public institutions and the art market and thus be an important part in the process of writing a history of art. If we consider younger critical voices which appear, for instance on the web, we can find a similar ambition. Quinte paral ele an Italian website dedicated to criticism33 describes the objectives of the initiative as follows: Why follow Parallel Fifths? ‘Because we ask questions: Parallel Fifths is a place for sharing ideas, debating and critiquing issues related to classical music and art music in general, and it is always ready to baste new reflections and get involved, to follow new questions and new stimuli to rethink the way we understand our musical culture. [. .] Because we are an alternative: we position ourselves as a new way for the dissemination of musical culture in Italy, to be able to finally make the voices of musicians and various workers in the field heard without academic filters and without fear of taking sides in the cultural chessboard of our country.34 30 Cf. Michael Lüthy, “Vorwort,” in KünstlerKritiker. Zum Verhältnis von Produktion und Kritik in bildender Kunst und Musik, ed. Michael Custodis et al. (Saarbrücken: Pfau, 2006), 8. 31 Cf. Hanno Rauterberg, “Wo sich Geist und Macht vereinen, hat es das wilde, das un-haltbare Denken schwer. Eine junge Künstlergeneration träumt von Heilung und Versöhnung. Für radikale Kritik von links ist kein Platz mehr. Eine Verlustanzeige,” Die Zeit, no. 4 (20 January 2022): 46. 32 Cf. Philippe Vergne, “Quelques mots émanés de paroles,” in: Marie de Brugerolle, Premières critiques (Dijon: Les presses du réel, 2010), 5. 33 I thank Irene Biancardi, who attended my seminar on criticism in 2020, for this information. 34 “Perché seguire Quinte Parallele? ‘Perché ci poniamo delle domande: Quinte parallele e un luogo di condivisione die idee, di dibattito e di critica sulle questioni legate alla musica classica e alla musica d’arte in generale, ed e sempre pronta ad imbastire nuove riflessioni e a mettersi in gioco, a seguire nuove domande e nuovi stimoli per ripen-sare il modo di intendere la nostra cultura musicale. [...] Perché siamo un alternative: ci poniamo come una nuova via per la diffusione della cultura musicale in Italia, per poter far sentire finalmente la voce dei musicisti e dei vari lavoratori del settore senza filtri accademici e senza paura di prendere posizione nella scacchiera cultu-rale del nostro paese.” Cf. Redazione, “Un Manifesto per Quinte Parallele,” Quinte Parallele, September 17, 2023, https://www.quinteparallele.net/2020/06/un-manifesto-per-quinte-parallele/. 48 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. By doing so the authors appear to take exactly the third position mentioned above between scientific interest, the artist’s intention, and the market. In addition, by appearing on the web they make their voices heard in a novel way – demonstrating possibilities new technologies offer the old genre of criticism. When they describe their aim, they stress – as we have seen it with critics since 200 years – the social and aesthetical values of music in which they are interested: “to bring classical music and its many artistic and social messages and values to the widest possible audience.”35 Bibliography Literature Adorno, Theodor W. “Zur Dreigroschenoper.” In Musikalische Schriften V [Ges. Schriften 18], edited by Rolf Tiedemann, 539–40. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1970. Anon. “Criticism.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 5, edited by Stanley Sadie, 670–98. London: Macmillan, 1980. Appel, Bernhard R. “Die ‘Marseillaise’ bei Heinrich Heine und Robert Schumann.” In Übergänge: zwischen Künsten und Kulturen. Internationaler Kongress zum 150. Todesjahr von Heinrich Heine und Robert Schumann, edited by Henriette Herwig, 289–304. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2007. Brecht, Bertolt. “Autobiographische Notizen 1921 bis Juni 1938.” In Bertolt Brecht: Werke. Große kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe, vol. 26: Journale 1, edited by Werner Hecht, Jan Knopf, Werner Mittenzwei, and Klaus-Detlef Müller, 299. Berlin, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1913–1941. Brecht, Bertold, and Kurt Weill. “Die Dreigroschenoper.” Kammerspiele der Josefstadt, Programm 2021/22. Debussy, Claude. “Le ‘Faust’ de Schumann. – Ouverture pour ‘Le Roi Lear’ d’A. Savard. – Le troisième acte de ‘Siegfried’. – Une Symphonie de Witkowski.” In: Claude Debussy, Monsieur Croche et autres écrits, edited by Francois Lesure, 25. Paris: Gallimard, 1987. Heinemann, Michael. “Kritik. Emanzipation des Hörers im 18. Jahrhundert.” In Kleine Geschichte der Musik, edited by Michael Heinemann, 145–57. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2013. Hentschel, Frank. “Zur Rolle der Wertung in der Musikhistoriographie.” In Musik – Politik – Gesel schaft. Michael Walter zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Kordula Knaus and Susanne Kogler, 339–58. Berlin: Metzler, 2023. 35 “portare la musica classica, i suoi molteplici messaggi e valore artistici e sociali al più ampio pubblico possibile. ” Ibid. 49 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Hoffmann, E. T. A. “Ouverture à grande Orchestre, ‘du jeune Henri Chasse’ par F. Méhul. Chez Breitkopf et Härtel à Leipsic.” In Die Schriften über Musik, in Dichtungen und Schriften [Gesamtausgabe in 15 Bänden, 12. Band], edited by Walther Harich, 209–10. Weimar, Lichtenstein, 1924. Hoffmann, E. T. A. “Grande Sonate pour le Pianoforte comp. - - par J.G Reichardt, Maitre de Chapelle de S.M. le roi de Prusse. à Leipsic, chez Breitkopf et Härtel.” In Die Schriften über Musik, in Dichtungen und Schriften [Gesamtausgabe in 15 Bänden, 12. Band], edited by Walther Harich, 335–6. Weimar, Lichtenstein, 1924. Jimenez, Marc. La querel e de l’art contemporain. Paris: Gallimard, 2005. Keym, Stefan. “Musik von einer einsamen Insel? Reichardts Grande Sonate f-Moll und die Kritik von E. T. A. Hoffmann.” In Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752– 1814). Zwischen Anpassung und Provokation, edited by Manfred Beetz et al., 145–62. Halle/Saale: s. n., 2003. Knittel, Kay M. Seeing Mahler: Music and the Language of Antisemitism in Fin-de-Siecle Vienna. Burlington: Ashgate, 2010. Kogler, Susanne. “‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Dichtung’ als Paradigmen der Kritik: Robert Schumann und Hugo Wolf.” In KünstlerKritiker. Zum Verhältnis von Produktion und Kritik in bildender Kunst und Musik, edited by Michael Custodis, Friedrich Geiger, Michael Lüthy, and Sabine Slanina, 28–43. Saarbrück-en: Pfau, 2006. Lüthy, Michael. “Vorwort.” In KünstlerKritiker. Zum Verhältnis von Produktion und Kritik in bildender Kunst und Musik, edited by Michael Custodis, Friedrich Geiger, Michael Lüthy, and Sabine Slanina, 8. Saarbrücken: Pfau, 2006. Nicklaus, Hans Georg. “Rousseau und die Verurteilung der Mehrstimmigkeit.” In Zwischen Rauschen und Offenbarung. Zur Kultur- und Mediengeschichte der Stimme, edited by Friedrich Kittler, Thomas Macho, and Sigrid Weigel, 153– 74. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Pohsner, Anja. “‘Wenn ich von mir selbst abhinge, würd’ ich Componist …’ Die Umwege des Musikers E. T. A. Hoffmann. Wechselwirkungen innerhalb seines musikalischen und literarischen Werkes.” Univ. Diss., Heidelberg, 1999. Redazione. “Un Manifesto per Quinte Parallele.” Quinte Paral ele, September 17, 2023. https://www.quinteparallele.net/2020/06/un-manifesto-per-quinteparallele/. Tadday, Ulrich, Christoph Flamm, and Peter Wicke. “Musikkritik.” In MGG, edited by Laurenz Lütteken. Kassel, Stuttgart, New York: s. n., 2016–2021. Vergne, Philippe. “Quelques mots émanés de paroles.” In: Marie de Brugerolle , Premières critiques, 5. Dijon: Les presses du réel, 2010. Winkler, Markus. “‘Die Grenadiere’. Heine und Schumann.” In Übergänge: zwischen Künsten und Kulturen. Internationaler Kongress zum 150. Todesjahr von 50 innovation, art, society, and life: deliberations on music criticism’s past, presence .. Heinrich Heine und Robert Schumann, edited by Henriette Herwig, 275–88. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2007. Periodicals Kleinen-von Königslöw, Katharina. “Problematisches Phänomen? – Zur Politisierung von Wissenschaft durch Social Media.” Forschung und Lehre 30, no. 2 (2023): 92–3. Kramar, Thomas. “Die fäkale Attacke eines Ballettdirektors auf eine Kritikerin lässt sich nicht rechtfertigen. Auch nicht durch unfaire Kritiken. Auch wer ‘Schas’ schreibt, soll nicht gezüchtigt warden.” Die Presse, February 15, 2023, 17. Rauterberg, Hanno. “Wo sich Geist und Macht vereinen, hat es das wilde, das un-haltbare Denken schwer. Eine junge Künstlergeneration träumt von Heilung und Versöhnung. Für radikale Kritik von links ist kein Platz mehr. Eine Verlustanzeige.” Die Zeit, no. 4 (20 January 2022): 46. Sinkovicz, Wilhelm. “Die vergessenen Komponistinnen.” Die Presse am Sonntag, February 12, 2023, 42–3. Sinkovicz, Wilhelm. “Friedrich Cerha: Wiener Avantgarde-Urgründe.” Die Presse, February 15, 2023, 17. Völkischer Beobachter, July 23, 1929 [München]. 51 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.53-66 Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ Wien der 1880er Jahre Hartmut Krones Univerza za glasbo in uprizoritveno umetnost na Dunaju Universität für Musik und darstel ende Kunst Wien In der Zeit vom 20. Jänner1 1884 bis 17. April 1887 war Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker der am Sonntag, dem 6. März 1870 erstmals mit einer „ Probe=Nummer.“ und dann weiterhin an Sonntagen bzw. in manchen Jahren an Samstagen (zunächst) wöchentlich erscheinenden Boulevardzeitung Wiener Salonblatt tätig. Als „ Eigenthümer und Herausgeber“ waren „ Otto v. Hentl & Victor Silberer“ genannt, letzterer fungierte auch als „ Verantwortlicher Redacteur“. Später, vom 10. Jänner 1897 bis zum 1. November 1918, trug das Blatt den Untertitel „ Oesterr.-Ungar. Adelsorgan“, dann war Schluß mit dem Adel: Ab 30. November 1918 lautete der Untertitel „ Internationales Gesel schaftsorgan“, ab 12. April 1919 „ Internat. il ustrierte Wochenschrift für Gesel schaft, schöne Künste, Mode, Sport und Finanzwesen“; ab 23. August 1919 erschien das Blatt vierzehntägig und mutierte zu „ Internat. il ustrierte Zeitschrift für Gesel schaft, schöne Künste [. .]“, um ab 1. November 1919 wieder zu „ Internationales Gesel schaftsorgan“ zurückzukehren. Vom 13. Ok-1 In der im folgenden als Findungshilfe herangezogenen, von Dietmar Langberg herausgegebenen Publikation Hugo Wolf. Vom Sinn der Töne. Briefe und Kritiken (Leipzig: Reclam, 1991) sind leider viele Schreibweisen „ den heute geltenden Regeln an-geglichen“ (S. 22), also den Regeln von 1991. Da diese keineswegs mehr den Regeln von 2023 entsprechen, wurde hier von solchen ohnehin unwissenschaftlichen An-gleichungen abgesehen. Vielmehr sind alle Schreibweisen und Satzzeichen original wiedergegeben. Selbstverständlich mußte auch der falsche „norddeutsche“ „Januar“ wieder dem originalen „süddeutsch-österreichischen“ „Jänner“ weichen. Zudem folgt der Autor angesichts der zahlreichen original wiedergegebenen Zitate in alter Rechtschreibung ebenfalls deren Regeln. 53 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today tober 1923 bis 20. März 1938 (an welchem Tag Adolf Hitler die Seite 1 zierte) war der Untertitel dann „ Internationale Gesel schaftsrevue“, ab 3. April 1938 gab es weder einen Untertitel noch war auf der Titelseite der damalige „ Eigentümer und Herausgeber“ Egon Maria Engel angegeben; dafür waren wieder Unmengen von Adeligen mit sämtlichen Titeln und Herkunfts-bezeichnungen abgebildet und benannt. Auf der Titelseite fungierte jetzt als Herausgeber eine „ Arische Betriebsgemeinschaft“, ab 24. Juli 1938 fehl-te selbst diese, und am 21. August erschien die letzte Nummer des Perio-dikums, doch auch sie mit einer „ Gräfin Lil y Coudenhove-Ronspergheim [. .]“ auf der Titelseite. (Am 7. August zierte „ Gräfin Gloria von Fürstenberg-Herdringen geb. de Rubio-d’Alatorre mit ihrer [zweijährigen] Tochter Gräfin Dolores“ die Seite 1.) 2 Das Wiener Salonblatt war nicht nur in Zeiten seines Untertitels „ Adelsorgan“ ein solches, denn auch in der ersten Nummer nach dessen Streichung, am 9. November 1918, prangte eine Fürstin auf der Titelseite, noch dazu „ Die Fürstin von Metternich-Winneburg geb. Doña Isabel de Silva y Carvajal mit dem [einjährigen] Erbprinzen Paul Alfons“. Vielleicht konnte man sie am Tag der Ausrufung der deutschen Republik (bzw. der Proklamation des Staates „Freie Sozialistische Republik Deutschlands“) sowie drei Tage vor der Ausrufung der „Republik Deutsch-Österreich“ (vom 12. November) nicht schnell genug von den Druckplatten entfernen, doch auch am 16. November zierte „ Ihre Erlaucht Gräfin Maria Theresia Fug-ger von Babenhausen“ die Titelseite, und bis 18. Jänner 1919 sehen wir in jeder Nummer weitere Gräfinnen, bisweilen mit ihrem Gatten; am 25. Jänner 1919 ist es dann „Komtesse Sarolta Széchényi“, schließlich folgen noch zweimal Gräfinnen, bis erstmals am 15. Februar 1919 eine Bürgerliche von der Titelseite blickt – ein „Frl. May Bourcart“, die allerdings die Tochter „ Ihrer Exzel enzen des derzeitigen Schweizerischen Gesandten in Wien Dr. Charles D. Bourcart und seiner Gemahlin Frau Louise E. Bourcart“ war. Dann sind wieder Baroninnen und Gräfinnen an der Reihe. Das bleibt noch lange so, wenngleich ab 27. April 1919 die Adelsprädikate nicht mehr (bzw. mit der Vorbemerkung „vormalige“) auf der Titelseite, sondern nur mehr (und nicht immer) gleichsam verschämt in den Bildbeschreibungen der Seite 2 genannt werden; so heißt es am 19. April: „ Der vormalige Erz-herzog Leopold und seine Braut Baronesse Dagmar Nicolics-Podrinska“. Trat doch am 10. April 1919 das „ Adelsaufhebungsgesetz“ in Kraft, das man oh-2 Alle Angaben wurden den von der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek ins Netz (https://anno.onb.ac.at) gestellten Digitalisaten der Zeitschrift entnommen. 54 hugo wolf als musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ wien der 1880er jahre nehin schon zweimal gebrochen hatte (am 12. und 19. April).3 Nicht ohne Grund bezeichnete Karl Kraus das Wiener Salonblatt daher als ein „ den gemeinsamen Angelegenheiten der Aristokratie und des Bal etts dienendes Schmutzblättchen“4. In der ersten Nummer hatte die „Redaction“ des Blattes dessen Aus-richtung („Unser Programm.“) in unmißverständlicher Weise umrissen: Wir wollen dem gebildeten Leser ein Blatt liefern, das in erster Linie unterhaltend sein soll; wir werden bestrebt sein, den wichtigen Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der Kunst, der Literatur und des socialen Lebens mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Wien’s gerecht zu werden und dies in einer Form, welche ohne doctrinär zu sein, doch das Wichtige betont, knapp ist, ohne in Oberflächlichkeit zu verfallen. Neben den Be-sprechungen der Tageserscheinungen werden wir Novellen und Erzäh-lungen bringen, welche durch Inhalt und Behandlung gleich anregend wirken sollen.5 Und weiteren allgemeinen Bemerkungen folgen sogleich Hinweise auf den Inhalt der nächsten Nummer: „, Die blutige Hand, ein Erlebniß,‘ Original=Novel e“; oder: „ Wiener Indiscretionen“; oder: „ im Feuil eton ‚Wiener Hoftheater‘ und ‚Wiener Demi-monde‘“.6 Zudem verwies man bei einigen nicht abgeschlossenen Beiträgen darauf, daß die „ Fortsetzung folgt“: „ Von New=York nach San Francisco. Durchreise auf der Pacificbahn von Victor Silberer.“7 sowie „ Der Urmensch. Ein Wort gegen die sogenannte ,Affentheorie.‘“8. Und in der ersten Nummer findet sich immerhin auch ein veritabler Verriß „Richard Wagner’s Meistersinger.“9 und hier sowohl von dessen „ im echten Zopfstyl abgefaßte[n] Textbuch“ als auch von dem Wagners „ Talente anhaftenden Mangel an echter Schöpfungskraft“. Börsenberichte und eine Rubrik „ Schach“ ergänzen.10 3 Auch diese Zitate bzw. Angaben sind den Digitalisaten der Nationalbibliothek entnommen. 4 Zitiert nach Dietmar Langberg (Anm. 1), 285. 5 Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 1 (6. März 1870): 8. 6 Sperrungen, wie auch im folgenden, original. 7 „Von New=York nach San Francisco. Durchreise auf der Pacificbahn von Victor Silberer.“, Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 2 (13. März 1870): 1ff. 8 H–I., „Der Urmensch. Ein Wort gegen die sogenannte ,Affentheorie.‘“, Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 2 (13. März 1870): 3f. 9 „Richard Wagner’s Meistersinger“, Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 1 (6. März 1870): 6f. 10 Alle Zitate aus den Digitalisaten (https://anno.onb.ac.at.). 55 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Für unser, den Musikkritiker Hugo Wolf in Augenschein nehmendes Thema wichtig ist die Tatsache, daß ihn sein Freund und Förderer, der Ju-welier Heinrich Köchert, zum Wiener Salonblatt vermittelt hatte und dort regelmäßig inserierte, womit er indirekt, aber ganz gezielt, Wolfs Honorar (60 Gulden pro Monat) beglich: „ Sooft Köchert die Rechnung für Insera-te bezahlte, legte er noch eine Summe bei, die als Gehalt an Wolf ausbezahlt wurde.“11 Mit insgesamt 112 Beiträgen griff Wolf Jänner 1884 in die aufgeheizte „ musikalische Parteienlandschaft“ Wiens ein, wobei er offen Partei für die sogenannten „Neudeutschen“ um Richard Wagner und Franz Liszt ergriff, sogenannte „Klassizisten“ wie (vor allem) Johannes Brahms aber deutlich ablehnte.12 Mit oft überaus sarkastischen Rezensionen schmähte er seiner Meinung nach einfallslose und langweilige Kompositionen, während er andere Werke mit hymnischen Worten in den Himmel hob. Gleich seine erste Kritik vom 20. Jänner 1884 („Jänner“, nicht „Januar“) zeigt uns, wie wenig der an jenem Tag noch mit „x. y.“ unterschreibende Hugo Wolf gewillt war, gängige Meinungen zu akzeptieren. Wir lesen hier in der Rubrik „Concerte.“: Das letzte philharmonische Concert wurde mit Berlioz’ geistsprühender Ouverture „Le carnaval romain“13 eröffnet, welche vom Publikum als eine willkommene Huldigung an den Fasching aufgefaßt, wie immer kräftig durchschlug. Minder gefiel R.[obert] Fuchs’ liebenswürdige, aber wenig originelle C-Dur=Serenade für Streichorchester, am Wenigsten eine neue Symphonie von Sgambati, deren zahlreiche instrumentale Pikanterien den Besuchern der philharmonischen Matinée absolut nicht eingingen.14 Auch Schuberts „kleine“ C-Dur-Symphonie, die „Sechste“, wurde Ziel einiger Kritik: 11 Frank Walker, Hugo Wolf. Eine Biographie (Graz, Wien, Köln: Styria, 1953), 202. Vgl. Langberg, Hugo Wolf, 285. 12 Hiezu siehe auch: Dolf Lindner, „Der Kritiker Hugo Wolf. Einblick in sein Verhältnis zu Komponisten, Musikern und Sängern“, Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 15 (Februar 1960): 70–5, hier 71–4. 13 Das Salonblatt bediente sich in zeitgemäßer Weise der Fraktur-Schrift, hob aber Fremdsprachliches (und somit auch fremdsprachliche Titel sowie Spezialbuchsta-ben) durch lateinische Lettern ab. Um dies in gleichsam originaler Weise zu do-kumentieren, sind im folgenden längere Zitate kursiviert, Fremdsprachliches aber nicht; somit sind hier „La carnaval romain“ sowie später das „é“ von „Matinée“ ge-mäß dem Original mit nicht kursivierten Lettern geschrieben. 14 x. y., „Concerte“, Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 4 (20. Jänner 1884): 7. 56 hugo wolf als musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ wien der 1880er jahre Der richtige Franz Schubert, wie wir ihn lieben und verehren, ist in der jüngst gehörten Symphonie noch lange nicht zu entdecken, im Gegen-theil hier tritt der große Tondichter als schwächlicher Nachahmer seines ihm später so antipathischen Rivalen Weber, dort gar als Copist Rossini’s auf, unverfälscht Schubert’sches Blut pulsirt nur in dem frisch aufstürmischen Scherzo mit seiner in die Ohren fallenden Reminiszenz an den bekannten von Liszt orchestrirten Reitermarsch. Dabei geht diese Schubert’sche Symphonie von Anfang bis Ende in einer unbarmher-zigen Heiterkeit fort, so daß wir uns schließlich bei ihrer Anhörung wie Heine’s „Tannhäuser“ ernsthaft nach – Bitternissen sehnen.15 Bereits in der nächsten Nummer vom 27. Jänner 1884, zeichnet Hugo Wolf mit seinem vollen Namen, und diesmal ist es in der Rubrik „Musik“ eine Sammelkritik „Concerte und Oper.“, die Lob und Tadel vereint. Zu-nächst spendet er dem „philharmonischen Orchester“ hohes Lob: Diesem vielköpfigen Virtuosen, der sich hinwiederum mit seinem genialen Kapellmeister Hans Richter zu einer unvergleichlich harmonischen Einheit concentrirt, können wir auf die im höchsten Grade bewunderungswürdige Wiedergabe der Mendelsohn’schen Musik zum Sonmernachtstraum hier nicht genug Lob spenden. Die Ausführung dieser genialen Composition ist und bleibt ein Kabinetsstück der Philharmoniker.16 Und beinahe noch höher stellt Wolf „ die Zauber des Berlioz’schen Orchesters“ in dessen Ouverture „Le carnaval romain“ mit einer wundersüßen kleinen Prinzessin, die sie in ihrem Uebermuth entführt und die nun darob betrübt in der rührenden des-Moll-Klage der zärtlichen Hoboe ihren kindlichen Schmerz aushaucht und, wie ein Kind, auch gleich hernach an dem munteren Getriebe ihrer lustigen Entführer sich ergötzt. In diesem instrumentalen Virtuosenstück hat Berlioz durch liebevolles Versenken in das kerndeutsche Wesen Weber’s seiner schwärmerischen Verehrung für den Componisten des „Frei-schütz“ den schönsten Ausdruck verliehen.17 Nach einigem Lob für die Sängerin Bianca Bianchi (eigentlich Bertha Schwarz) und den philharmonischen Konzertmeister Arnold Rosé erfahren dann Ignaz Brüll und David Popper köstliche Verrisse: 15 Ibid. 16 Hugo Wolf, „Musik. Concerte und Oper“, Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 5 (27. Jänner 1884): 10. 17 Ibid. 57 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Ueber Herrn Brüll, der als Virtuose und Componist (er spielte sein zweites Clavier=Concert) auf dem Programm figurirte, wollen wir nicht viel Worte verlieren; wenn wir uns dahin aussprechen, daß sein Spiel mindestens so uninteressant ist, als seine Composition langweilig, so läuft das so ziemlich auf Eins hinaus – Dutzendarbeit! Wenden wir uns zu einem anderen Virtuosen und Componisten: D. Popper. Er hat Renommé und das Publikum respectirt dasselbe, besonders wenn er falsch spielt. Er gebietet über hübsche Kunststücke, miß- braucht sie aber zumeist und verkennt ganz und gar den Charakter seines Instrumentes, wenn er glaubt, auf seinem Violoncell durchaus Violine spielen zu müssen. Er componirt auch recht hübsch und sein Spinnlied, abwechselnd auf dem Cello und der Violine gespielt, müßte sich recht artig ausnehmen. Da er aber vorzieht, es ganz allein auf dem Cello zu spielen, so wimmert, quickt und winselt es in der höchsten Ap-plicatur, daß man alles eher, denn ein Spinnlied zu vernehmen glaubt.18 Hugo Wolf sprang also, und deshalb habe ich mich so lange bei seinen ersten zwei Artikeln aufgehalten, sofort in die Arena der bekannter-maßen sowohl umstrittenen als auch von mannigfaltigen Vorlieben für prominente Künstler geprägten Musikszene und scheute sich nicht, sowohl anerkannte Komponisten als auch umjubelte Virtuosen schonungslos und mit kräftiger Feder zu kritisieren. Leider sind just diese ersten Kritiken unseres jungen Rezensenten in dem auch ansonsten keineswegs verdienstvollen Band Hugo Wolf. Vom Sinn der Töne. Briefe und Kritiken nicht enthalten. – Zudem fälscht der Herausgeber dieses Bandes bedenkenlos Hugo Wolfs Schreibweisen, läßt, wenn Wolf (am 27. April 1884) von „ jämmerlichen Epigonen“ spricht, das Wort „ jämmerlichen“ aus und, besonders schlimm, macht auch aus „Symphonien“ und „symphonischen Dichtungen“ immer neudeutsche „Sinfonien“ und „sinfonische Dichtungen“. Und somit sind auch Hugo Wolfs musikästhetische Anschauungen gnadenlos verzerrt, wenn nicht sogar verfälscht. Wieder zurück zu unserem Autor: Man muß bedenken, daß Hugo Wolf damals noch keine 24 Jahre zählte und eigentlich ein erfolgloser Stu-dienabgänger war, der wegen eines disziplinären Vergehens vorzeitig aus dem Conservatorium der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde entlassen worden war. Und Wolf griff dann sehr bald, am 27. April 1884,19 auch in den damals 18 Ibid. 19 Rubrik „Musik.“, Artikel „Oper und Concerte.“, Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 17 (27. April 1884): 10ff. 58 hugo wolf als musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ wien der 1880er jahre so emotional geführten Streit zwischen den Parteigängern der „ neudeutschen“ Ästhetik eines Liszt, Wagner oder auch Bruckner sowie den Ver-fechtern des „ Neoklassizismus“ eines Brahms ein. Ausgangspunkt ist Liszts Symphonische Dichtung „ Tasso“; ich zitiere: Wie wird mir warm um’s Herz, wenn in einer Zeit, wo fortwährend Symphonien, Suiten, Serenaden u. dgl. Zeugs mehr wie Unkraut aus dem unfruchtbaren Boden der absoluten Musik emporwuchern, eine symphonische Dichtung von Liszt mir am Programme entgegenleuch-tet! Liszt und symphonische Dichtung! Das ist für die Zöpfe und Musikzünftigen das: Hannibal ante portas. Ihr lieben Leute, was schreckt euch denn so, wenn ihr eine symphonische Dichtung und den Schöpfer derselben am Programme erblickt? Die Beckenschläge doch nicht, an denen übrigens noch kein Mensch gestorben ist [. .] die Beckenschlä- ge allein können es nicht sein, die euch stutzen machen, denn das bloße Wort „symphonische Dichtung“ treibt euch schon den Angstschweiß auf die Stirne. [. .] Wollt ihr heute Symphonien haben, wie sie Beethoven geschrieben, dann verrückt unser Jahrhundert, erweckt den Meister von den Todten, aber setzt nicht unsere jämmerlichen Epigonen, diese mit der classischen Form geschminkten und mit dem classischen Geist coquettirenden impotenten Symphonienschreiber der Gegenwart, an seine Stelle. [. .] Wie denn, wenn Liszt kein Programm euch böte, er eu-rem scharfsinnigen Witz nicht zu Hilfe käme mit einem poetisch abgefaßten Vorworte, würdet ihr auch dann noch mit triumphirender Miene erzählen, daß ihr haarspalterischen Leute durch die überaus cha-rakteristische Musik im „Mazeppa“ erfahren habt, wieviel Haare der Schweif des Pferdes, daran Mazeppa gebunden war, enthalten? [. .] Bildet ihr euch nicht ein, daß in der eroica [. .] die schwarzen Hußaren gegen einen Trupp Kürassiere, oder Uhlanen und Infanterie gegenein-ander anstürmen, Napoleon Bonaparte sich schneuzt, kratzt oder hus-tet, befiehlt, reitet, mit den Augen zwinkert und ähnliche Albernheiten mehr? Wollt ihr nicht eine ländliche Hochzeit mit allem nöthigen Zuge-hör durch vier Sätze hindurch in der 7. Symphonie erkennen? Und dieß Alles ohne Programm!!! Es ist doch schade, daß Beethoven nicht so liebenswürdig und gefällig dem Publikum sich erwiesen, wie Franz Liszt. Nun muß man schon selber sein Hirn anstrengen und sich eine hübsche Geschichte auf so eine Beethoven’sche Symphonie erfinden. Aber das Fatale daran ist der Umstand, daß Jeder seine eigene Geschichte für die richtige hält [. .]. Aus all’ dem ersieht man, daß wir Fr. Liszt für das ge-botene Programm nur dankbar sein können. Was nun Liszt’s Musik an-belangt, so ist dieselbe allerdings mehr geist= als gefühlvoll, aber auch schwung=, feurig=phantasievoll und immer plastisch. Sind die Themen 59 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today in unseren berühmten neuen Symphonien plastisch? In der Regel nicht [...].20 Spezielles Lob erfährt Liszt dann noch, weil er im Gegensatz zu Hector Berlioz auch auf dem Gebiet der Form zu neuen Ufern schritt: Was Lißt [!]21 jedoch vor Berlioz voraus hat, ist, daß er mit größter Si-cherheit eine neue Form geschaffen, indem er die poetische Idee mit Be-wußtsein an die Spitze stellte und, um dieselbe künstlerisch durchzu-führen, ganz selbstverständlich von der hergebrachten symphonischen Form abweichen mußte, da er [. .] die musikalische Form von dem Inhalt der dichterischen Vorlage abhängen zu lassen sich veranlaßt fand.22 Wolf bezog sich hier ganz offensichtlich nicht zuletzt auf Franz Liszts Schrift „ Berlioz und seine Harold-Symphonie“, in welcher Liszt die her-kömmliche traditionelle Form der Symphonie verwarf und an Stelle dessen postulierte, der programmatische Inhalt eines Werkes müsse auch die Form bestimmen. Genau so argumentierte auch Hugo Wolf: Der Inhalt der dichterischen Idee war also nicht, wie bei Berlioz, nur auf den musikalischen Gehalt, sondern wie bei Lißt auch auf die Form von bestimmendem Einfluß. [. .] So originelle, kühn und genial erfun-dene Schöpfungen, – als die Lißt’s, werden jedoch von unsern Kritikern mit souveräner Verachtung, oder mit einer mitleidig spöttelnden Bemerkung abgethan, während die Leimsiedereien, diese ekelhaft schaa-len, im Grunde der Seele verlogenen und verdrehten Symphonien von Brahms als Weltwunder von ihnen gepriesen werden. Wer da ruhig bliebe! In einem einzigen Beckenschlage aus einem Lißt’schen Werke drückt sich mehr Geist und Empfindung aus als in allen drei Brahms’- schen Symphonien, und seinen Serenaden obendrein. Ueberhaupt Lißt und Brahms vergleichen! Das Genie mit dem Epigonen eines Epigonen! Den Königsadler mit dem Zaunkönig! – Genug davon.23 Wolfs Brahms-Kritik bezieht sich, das sei zu seiner Ehre gesagt, allerdings nur auf die „ klassizistische“ Form seiner Orchesterwerke, während er sehr wohl anderen Werken des Komponisten Lob zukommen läßt. So findet er am 3. April 1887 für „ Brahms’ tiefempfundenes und durchweg stim-20 Ibid., 11. 21 Da das „ß“ in der deutschen Kurrent-Schrift (wie auch in der Sütterlin-Schrift) aus einem „langen s“ und einem angehängten „z“ besteht, also de facto ein „sz“ ist (und in Teilen Deutschlands bis heute so genannt wird), wird Liszt hier (auch) „Lißt“ geschrieben. 22 Wolf, „Musik. Oper und Concerte“, 27. April 1884, 11. 23 Ibid., 11–2. 60 hugo wolf als musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ wien der 1880er jahre mungsvol es Lied ‚Von ewiger Liebe‘“ lobende Worte, wenngleich auch hier bald der zu erwartende Seitenhieb folgt: Mit Recht gilt dieses Lied als das Beste, was Brahms in dieser Gattung geschaffen. Man möchte kaum glauben, daß derselbe Componist, der dieses herrliche Lied gesungen, vier Symphonien schreiben konnte, deren lächerliche Ernsthaftigkeit, ein Muster unfreiwilligen Humors, der Welt als ein heiteres Andenken an den verheißenen Messias erhalten zu bleiben verdient.24 Lassen wir die deutlich überzogenen Angriffe auf das symphonische Schaffen von Johannes Brahms, die gleichzeitig eine Verteidigung der Kompositions-Ästhetik unseres Autors sind, kurz beiseite; vielmehr wollen wir in diesem Zusammenhang überlegen, wo die in diesen Äußerungen als wünschenswert bzw. notwendig erachtete formale Gestaltung einer symphonischen Dichtung tatsächlich durch den außermusikalischen „Inhalt“, das „poetische Programm“ bestimmt wurde, so ist es neben einigen symphonischen Dichtungen von Franz Liszt insbesondere ein Werk, das diesem Ideal voll und ganz entspricht: die symphonische Dichtung Penthesilea von Hugo Wolf selbst, die ich persönlich höher einschätze als vergleichba-re symphonische Dichtungen von Richard Strauss. Und ich kann nicht um-hin, einmal mehr die unglaubliche Gedankenlosigkeit der internationalen Konzertveranstalter anzuklagen, dieses grandiose Schlüsselwerk für die Idee einer tatsächlich inhaltsbestimmten symphonischen Dichtung nicht regelmäßig auf ihre Programme zu setzen. Ohne die Programmierung der Laibacher Orchesterkonzerte der letzten 35 Jahre in ihrem gesamten Umfang zu kennen, muß ich anmerken, daß ich seit meiner Teilnahme an den Symposien des hiesigen Festivals, also seit 1987, Hugo Wolfs Penthesilea hier nie gehört habe. (Auch in Wien stand das Werk in diesem Zeitraum nur einmal auf einem Konzertprogramm.) Wolf hat in dieser symphonischen Dichtung drei Szenen des Kleistschen Dramas musikalisch „ nach-gezeichnet“, die musikalische Form dem Ablauf der dichterischen Szenen nachgebildet und zum Teil sogar die Metren und den Tonfall des Textes in seine Musik übernommen.25 Und so wird die Penthesilea zum grandio-24 Hugo Wolf, „Musik“, Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 14 (3. April 1887): 10. 25 Zu diesem Werk siehe: Hartmut Krones, „,Er hatte sich gleichsam mit seinem ganzen Körper in das Wort des Dichters verwandelt!‘ Hugo Wolfs ,Penthesilea‘ als Musik gewordene Dichtung“, in Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft 13, Hrsg. Constantin Floros, Hans Joachim Marx, Peter Petersen, Wolfgang Dömling, Annette Kreutziger-Herr (Laaber: Laaber, 1995), 201–21. 61 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today sesten Beispiel für jene „ neue Form“ der symphonischen Musik, die Hugo Wolf bei Franz Liszt verwirklicht sah. Ein Ausschnitt aus einer Bruckner-Rezension („Bruckner-Abend, veranstaltet von den Herren Ferdinand Löwe und Josef Schalk.“) soll noch do-kumentieren, daß Wolf keineswegs ein solch glühender Verehrer dieses Komponisten war, wie meist kolportiert wird: Der Mangel an Intelligenz, das ist es, was uns die Bruckner’schen Symphonien, bei aller Originalität, Größe, Kraft, Phantasie und Erfindung so schwer verständlich macht. Ueberall ein Wollen, colossale Anläufe, aber keine Befriedigung, keine künstlerische Lösung. Daraus entspringt die Formlosigkeit seiner Werke, die scheinbare Ueberspanntheit des Ausdruckes. Bruckner ringt noch mit der Idee und hat nicht den Muth, dieselbe an die Spitze zu stellen und so mit klarem Bewußtsein weiter zu schreiten. So schwankt er, halb in Beethoven, halb in den neuen Errun-genschaften, wie sie in den symphonischen Dichtungen Franz Liszt’s ihren vollkommensten Ausdruck gefunden, wurzelnd zwischen diesen Beiden, ohne sich für den Einen noch den Andern entscheiden zu können. Das ist sein Unglück. Trotzdem aber stehe ich nicht an, die Symphonien Bruckner’s als die bedeutendsten symphonischen Schöpfungen, die seit Beethoven geschrieben worden sind, zu bezeichnen. Es sind Werke eines verunglückten Genies, ähnlich wie die colossalen Dichtungen Grabbe’s. Kühne, großartige Conceptionen sind beiden ebenso gemein, als das Zerfahrene, Formlose in der Durchführung. Wie bei Grabbe das Schwelgerische in der Phantasie, der geniale Gedankenflug an Shakespeare erinnert, so meinen wir oft in den grandiosen Themen und deren tiefsinniger Verarbeitung, wie wir sie in allen Bruckner’schen Symphonien finden, die Sprache Beethoven’s zu vernehmen. Es lohn-te sich also wohl die Mühe, diesem genialen Stürmer etwas mehr Auf-merksamkeit, als dies bisher geschehen ist, zuzuwenden, und es ist ein wahrhaft erschütternder Anblick, diesen außerordentlichen Mann aus dem Concertsaale verbannt zu sehen, er, der unter den jetzt lebenden Componisten (Liszt natürlich ausgenommen) den ersten und größten Anspruch hat, aufgeführt und bewundert zu werden.26 Auch die Konzertplanung der Wiener Philharmoniker bekommt ihr Fett ab. Dafür nimmt Wolf in dem Essay „Ein Monolog, nacherzählt von Hugo Wo l f .“27 einen Umweg um „ einen Unbekannten“, der „ in einer recht 26 Hugo Wolf, „Bruckner-Abend, veranstaltet von den Herren Ferdinand Löwe und Josef Schalk“, Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 53 (28. Dezember 1884): 6–7. 27 Hugo Wolf, „Ein Monolog, nacherzählt von Hugo Wolf“, Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 45 (1. November 1884): 6f. 62 hugo wolf als musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ wien der 1880er jahre unfreundlichen Nacht [...] vor einer Annoncensäule [...] eifrig bemüht war, das Programm der Philharmoniker zu entziffern“. Eröffnet wird der Text mit einem Seitenhieb auf die damalige Mode, Bach zu spielen: Bach ist beim philharmonischen Publikum zur fashion geworden und es gehört zum guten Ton, sämmtliche Bach’sche Cantaten auf den Fingern herzuzählen [. .] Wie Mancher macht wohl den Umweg über sämmtliche Bach’sche Compositionen, die er hören möchte, um schließlich beim „lustigen Krieg“ oder, wenn’s gut geht, beim des-Walzer Chopin’s anzuhalten. [. .] Brahms? Wetter! Der macht dem alten Bach Concur-renz im Classischen. [. .] Schumann, Schubert, Mendelssohn – Dwořák? Doch um Gotteswillen keine Symphonie? Nein! slavische Rhapsodie, – in Gottes Namen. [. .] Rob. Fuchs? Aha, wieder eine Serenade? Nein, eine Symphonie. Rob. Volkmann – wahrscheinlich eine Symphonie? Nein, eine Serenade. Nächstes Jahr wird’s umgekehrt: Symphonie von Volkmann, Serenade von Fuchs. Immerhin. Abwechslung muß sein, und die Philharmoniker verstehen sich darauf, wahrhaftig! – Penthesilea von Goldmark. – Ein herrlicher Vorwurf für die musikalische Bear-beitung; aber das Talent des Componisten reicht nicht aus für die Größe dieses Stoffes. Ein Makart nur hätte die Penthesilea in Farben, ein Liszt oder Berlioz nur musikalisch sie versinnlichen können. Kein Anderer vermag es. – Aber ist das schon die ganze Herrlichkeit des Programmes? Ha! Richard Wagner: Eine Faust=Ouverture. Die mögen wir immer gern hören! – Warum man nur das Siegfried=Idyll nicht aufführt? Warum nicht die neue Venusberg=Musik, die man auch in der Oper nie zu hören bekommt? Warum nicht Stücke aus den Nibelungen, aus Par-sifal? Warum? Warum?28 Dietmar Langbergs edierte in seiner Publikation als letzten Beitrag Hugo Wolfs für das Wiener Salonblatt dessen Rezension vom 3. April 188729 mit grundsätzlichen Bemerkungen zu Bedeutung sowie Problemen von Liederabenden; danach kritisierte Wolf die Programmierung, aber auch die Ausführung des Liederabends, den der Bariton Theodor Reichmann am 28. März im Großen Musikvereinssaal gab. So bezeichnete er als „ Geschmacklosigkeit“, drei Lieder von so nichtsnutziger Art, wie die [Hermann] Riedel’schen in das Programm [. .] aufzunehmen? Glaubt Herr Reichmann dem Componisten förderlich zu sein, wenn er dessen Blößen vor aller Augen aufdeckt, oder glaubt er dieselben durch seine schöne Stimme ge-28 Ibid., 6–7. 29 Wolf, „Musik“, 3. April 1887, 10. 63 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today nügend verhüllt zu haben? [. .] möchte ich Herrn Reichmann nahele-gen, daß seine unerwünschten Textveränderungen nicht immer auf den Beifall des vergewaltigten Dichters zählen dürften. [. .] Daß Herr Reichmann den Anforderungen für den Vortrag der Ballade nicht genügt, haben wir an dieser Stelle schon zum öftern vermerkt. Wiederum sang er die Ballade ,Heinrich der Vogler‘ und wiederum mit derselben Gleich-gültigkeit gegen den bald epischen bald dramatischen Ton des Gedich-tes. Ob der Erzähler oder der Held spricht, gilt ihm all’ eins.30 Am 10. April31 folgte ein Verriß der Oper Harold von Karl Pfeffer sowie seines „ von Unsinn und Abgeschmacktheit starrenden Textbuches“, die Rezension vom 17. April32 galt u. a. dem letzten Kammermusikabend des „Quartett Rosé“ in der Saison 1886/87. Und Wolf sparte nicht mit Kritik an dieser ansonsten mit „ wahrhaft künstlerischen Productionen“ hervortreten-den „ vortrefflichen Gesel schaft“: Was diesmal geboten wurde, war allerdings nicht nach unserem Ge-schmacke, aber die Art, wie Herr Rosé die am Programm angeführten musikalischen Schlaf= und Vergessenheitstränke credenzte, wie er besorgt war, seine andächtigen Zuhörer in sanfte Träume zu lullen, ist bewunderungswürdig, wenn auch nicht nachahmenswert. Pfeffer, Rubinstein und Brahms! Na, das ist schon keine geringe Dosis Schlafpul-ver mehr für schwache Nerven. So ein Programm riecht ja schon nach Meuchelmord und sollte eigentlich von der Polizei aus verboten sein. Aber wenn ich recht bedenke, daß es ganz in dem Belieben des Herrn Rosé lag, dieses hübsche Trifolium um einen Brüll oder Dworak zu ver-mehren, so muß ich über das weise Maßhalten unseres wackern Con-certmeisters wiederum erstaunen und mich zugleich freuen, daß sich solchergestalt noch die unverhoffte Gelegenheit findet, anstatt zu ta-deln, mit den herzlichsten Wünschen für das Gedeihen des Quartetts Rosé zu schließen.33 Der letzte Beitrag Wolfs erschien eine Woche später und galt der Aufführung von Wagners Lohengrin;34 und aus ihm sollen zwei typische Aus-lassungen unseres Rezensenten zitiert werden, die sich im letzten Absatz der Kritik befinden: 30 Ibid. 31 Hugo Wolf, „Oper und Concerte“, Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 15 (10. April 1887): 10f. 32 Hugo Wolf, „Concerte“, Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 16 (17. April 1887): 11f. 33 Ibid., 12. 34 Hugo Wolf, „Hofoper“, Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 17 (24. April 1887): 13f. 64 hugo wolf als musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ wien der 1880er jahre Einstweilen weiß ich nur so viel, daß Frau Herbert=Förster als Elsa in „Lohengrin“ auf unserer Bühne kaum Wurzel fassen wird, wie sehr auch eine Notiz der „Neuen Freien Presse“ der entgegengesetzten Anschauung Ausdruck verliehen. Frau Herbert=Förster vom deutschen Theater in New=York ist eine stattliche Dame, leider nur zu stattlich, um eine zarte Lichtgestalt wie Elsa innerhalb der Grenzlinien des Schö- nen zu halten. Die Darstellung betreffend, behilft sich die Sängerin mit den bewährten Mitteln der Routine, die den Begriff des Conventionel-len schon mit einschließt. Stimme – mäßig. Vortrag – ziemlich correct, aber nicht erwärmend. Besondere Kennzeichen – keine.35 Und die letzten Sätze Hugo Wolfs als Kritiker lauten: Ausnehmend schön und edel sang und spielte Herr R e i c h m a n n den Telramund; wir betonen diese erfreuliche Wahrnehmung umso kräftiger, als uns nur zu oft die traurige Nothwendigkeit auferlegt wird, die Schwächen des verdienstvollen Sängers schonungslos aufzudecken. Was aber soll man über den König des Herrn R o k i t a n s k y sagen? Das Richtige auszusprechen wäre fast unschicklich; aber denken kann man sich’s.36 Mit dem Ausscheiden von Hugo Wolf endet für lange Zeit die das Musikleben betreffende Berichterstattung im Wiener Salonblatt. Musik hatte im Wiener Salon offensichtlich keinen Platz mehr. Bibliografie Literatur Krones, Hartmut. „,Er hatte sich gleichsam mit seinem ganzen Körper in das Wort des Dichters verwandelt!‘ Hugo Wolfs ,Penthesilea‘ als Musik gewordene Dichtung“. In Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft 13, hrsg. von Constantin Floros, Hans Joachim Marx, Peter Petersen, Wolfgang Dömling, Annette Kreutziger-Herr, 201–21. Laaber: Laaber, 1995. Langberg, Dietmar, Hrsg. Hugo Wolf. Vom Sinn der Töne. Briefe und Kritiken. Leipzig: Reclam, 1991. Walker, Frank. Hugo Wolf. Eine Biographie. Graz, Wien, Köln: Styria, 1953. Zeitschriften H–I. „Der Urmensch. Ein Wort gegen die sogenannte ,Affentheorie . ‘“. Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 2 (13. März 1870): 3f. 35 Ibid., 13–4. 36 Ibid., 14. 65 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Lindner, Dolf. „Der Kritiker Hugo Wolf. Einblick in sein Verhältnis zu Komponisten, Musikern und Sängern“. Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 15 (Februar 1960): 70–5. „Richard Wagner’s Meistersinger.“ Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 1 (6. März 1870): 6f. „Von New=York nach San Francisco. Durchreise auf der Pacificbahn von Victor Silberer . “. Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 2 (13. März 1870): 1ff. Wiener Salonblatt 1884–1887 , https://anno.onb.ac.at. Wiener Salonblatt I, Nr. 1 (6. März 1870): 8. Wolf, Hugo. „Musik. Concerte und Oper“. Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 5 (27. Jänner 1884): 10–1. Wolf, Hugo. „Musik. Oper und Concerte“. Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 17 (27. April 1884): 10–2. Wolf, Hugo. „Ein Monolog, nacherzählt von Hugo Wolf“. Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 45 (1. November 1884): 6–7. Wolf, Hugo. „Bruckner-Abend, veranstaltet von den Herren Ferdinand Löwe und Josef Schalk“. Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 53 (28. Dezember 1884): 6–7. Wolf, Hugo. „Musik“. Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 14 (3. April 1887): 10. Wolf, Hugo. „Oper und Concerte“. Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 15 (10. April 1887): 10–1 Wolf, Hugo. „Concerte“. Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 16 (17. April 1887): 11–2. Wolf, Hugo. „Hofoper“. Wiener Salonblatt XVIII, Nr. 17 (24. April 1887): 13–4. x. y. „Concerte“. Wiener Salonblatt XV, Nr. 4 (20. Jänner 1884): 7–8. 66 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.67-76 “Catholic” Programme Music? Franz Liszt’s Religiosity in the Focus of the Viennese Press (1857–1900) Bianca Schumann Univerza na Dunaju University of Vienna Hardly any debates polarised the Viennese concert-going public in the 19th century more than the one concerning the aesthetic value of symphonic programme music. The Viennese press provided the arena for this great battle: across a variety of newspapers, numerous critics crossed swords in frequently polemical tones over this musical genre, which became established in the 1850s. As I discovered while writing my dissertation1 – which critically examined about 1000 specially compiled music reviews published by about 150 authors in 35 Viennese periodicals covering 116 performances of 45 different symphonic programme music compositions between 1855 and 1900 – composition and performance reviews were rarely limited in their argumentation solely to the evaluation of the musical texture. Reviewers also questioned both the aesthetic value of the main musical genres as well as the composers’ individual artistic ability. In such author-focused discussions, aspects such as national identity2 or religious convictions also often came to the fore. 1 Bianca Schumann, “Umstrittene Tongemälde. Die Rezeption symphonischer Programmmusik in Wien (1855–1900)” (Dissertation, University of Vienna, 2022). 2 Bianca Schumann, “Ein ‘deutscher’ Franzose? Die Rezeption von Camille Saint- -Saëns’ symphonischer Programmmusik im Wiener Pressediskurs (1876–1889),” Ad Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental Music 17, no. 34 (2019): 103–27; Bianca Schumann, “Zwischen Ost und West: Franz Liszts nationale Identität in der Wiener Musikkritik (1857–1900),” Studia Musicologica 61, no. 3–4 (2020): 367–79; Bianca Schumann, “‘Slawische’ Programmmusik? Bedřich Smetanas und Antonín Dvořáks Nationalität im Fokus der Wiener Presse (1887–1918),” Journal of Music Criticism 6 (2022): 39–75. 67 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today This paper treats excerpts of this journalistic dispute from the perspective of reception history and thereby focuses on one of “non-musical” since biographically oriented evaluation criteria. The aim is to understand the role that perceptions of Franz Liszt’s religious convictions played in the debate about his symphonic programme music; i. e. in what way the selected reviewers’ music criticism deployed this non-musical evaluative criterion – for what purposes and with what intentions. No composer other than Liszt has had their religious beliefs subject to such public scrutiny in the reception of their symphonic programme music.3 This is due on the one hand to Liszt’s personal attitude towards the Christian religion4 and on the other to the specific themes treated in some of his symphonic programmes. In some compositions, the reference to religious themes is obvious from their title or the programme, as with The Battle of the Huns (Symphonic Poem No. 11) , which was written in response to the painting of the same name by the painter Wilhelm Kaulbach, known 3 The reception of Goldmark’s Ländliche Hochzeit, for example, proves to be only marginally influenced by his Jewish faith. Accordingly, in the reviews of the Viennese premiere of this work in 1876, allusions to Goldmark’s religious references can only be found in Ludwig Speidel’s review, discussed in detail by David Brodbeck. See: Anon., “(Musikalische Aufführungen.),” Fremden-Blatt. Morgen-Blatt 68 (9 March 1876): 6. The reviews written for the second and, for the century, last performance of this work in 1891 are free of such references. Goldmark was nevertheless repeatedly subjected to anti-Semitic criticism, especially in the later decades of the century, but in particular reference to his two operas Die Königin von Saba and Merlin, as is also discussed by Brodbeck. The Viennese discourse on Goldmark’s symphonic programme music is only negligibly influenced by his religion. David Brodbeck, Defining Deutschtum. Political Ideology, German Identity, and MusicCritical Discourse in Liberal Vienna (= The New Cultural History of Music Series) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 101–5, 199–248, 290–308. 4 The complex area of Liszt’s religious faith cannot be dealt with in depth in this publication due to the reception-aesthetic perspective on which it is based. For an introduction to the subject see, among others, Paul Merrick, Revolution and Religion in the Music of Franz Liszt (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), esp. 3–87; Ralph P. Locke, “Liszt on the Artist in Society,” in Franz Liszt and His World (= The Bard Music Festival Princeton), ed. Christopher H. Gibbs and Dana Gooley (Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006), 295–6; Rena Charnin Mueller, “From the Biographer’s Workshop: Lina Ramann’s Questionnaires to Liszt,” trans. Susan Hohl, in Franz Liszt and His World (= The Bard Music Festival Princeton), ed. Christopher H. Gibbs and Dana Gooley (Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006), 362; Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, 3 vols., vol. 2: The Weimar Years 1848–1861 (= Great Composer Series) (New York: Cornell University Press, 1993), 11–2, 406–7 and 544; Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, 3 vols., vol. 3: The Final Years. 1861–1886 (= Great Composer Series) (New York: Cornell University Press, 1996), 10–1, 55, 69–70 and 85–91. 68 “catholic” programme music? franz liszt’s religiosity in the focus of the viennese press .. for his literary illustrations and paintings with historical content. Another example of this type of direct reference is the Dante Symphony. It is based on Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy and the Christian titles of its three movements – Inferno, Purgatorio, Magnificat – refer to that literary work. In other compositions – such as the third symphonic poem Les Préludes, which was named after a poem from Alphonse de Lamartine’s collection Nouvel es méditations poétiques – the religious colouring of the extramusi-cal programme is more subtle.5 The thematic orientation of these three programmatic symphonies in particular encouraged some in the musical press to present Liszt’s work as expressions of his personal religious convictions and theological mission, thereby non-aesthetically legitimising them as music which is “close to God”. Critics who shared the conviction that Liszt had become a man of God after receiving the minor orders in 1865, that he had successfully satisfied his lifelong search for God, that his “spirit [...] had overcome matter,”6 could in principle draw on such an argument. In reasoning of this kind, the figure of the composer himself plays a decisive role, since an audience’s perception of his nature and character traits, his “attitude and outlook,”7 as Kulke describes it, becomes the essential component in assessing his musical works. At the same time, the specific musical textures lose significance for the composer’s reception, since the author’s own status as a “loving, mild, godly musician”8 formally confers upon his “sacred music”9 a priori value, as the pseudonymous reviewer de Joux puts it. Con-versely, the positive perception of the composer as a Christian becomes indispensable for affirming the validity of his works. For without the recognition of the “divine aura” of the composer, they lose their dogmatic claim to legitimacy, which secures them public approval, regardless of their actual form.10 This interdependency between work and composer, established over 5 Cf. Sandra J. Fallon-Ludwig, “Religious, Philosophical and Social Significance in the Symphonic Poems of Franz Liszt” (Dissertation, Brandeis University, 2010). 6 Ed. K., “Operntheater und Concerte. (Niemann’s Gastspiel. – ‘Iphigenie’. – Franz Liszt. – ‘Les préludes’. – Gesellschaftsconcert. – Eine neue Symphonie von Mendelssohn. – Fräulein Menter. – Orchesterverein. – Ein dankbarer Impresario.),” Das Vaterland 60 (1 March 1869): 1. 7 Ed. K., “Concerte,” Das Vaterland 21 (21 January 1874): 1. 8 Ibid. 9 de Joux, “Concerte,” Wiener Salonblatt 13 (30 March 1890): 9. 10 The critic writing as –h., for example, considers the influence of Liszt’s religious beliefs on the Faust Symphony more objectively. Unlike the other reviewers cited in this paper, he does not regard Liszt’s Catholicism as an authority that legitimises the work per se, but remains able to dispense negative judgement through his ideological distance from the aesthetic object, without having to evaluate Liszt’s religious in-69 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today a number of reviews, is especially prominent in a report by one of Liszt’s students, August Göllerich. Göllerich explains that in the “Pastorale” of Les préludes, the qualities of “intimacy and tenderness” that comprise Liszt’s “genuinely German sensibility” are “combined with religious elements to produce the most genuine consecration” and that due to the interplay of these two natural character traits, he allows us “to find refreshment in the sunlit divine peace of nature. ”11 The critic Eduard Kulke also draws a close connection between Liszt’s artistry and his nature, between his music and his religiosity. He interprets the “clarifying musical process, ” which he observes through the successive genesis of Liszt’s symphonic oeuvre, as the effect of Liszt’s progressive “cleansing and refinement of [his] inner emotional life, ” which finally manifests itself audibly in the “outer expression,” that is, in his art. In Les préludes, an early symphonic work, Kulke perceives Liszt as a “fighter and wrestler against the traditional form, ” whereas in his later works, such as the two symphonies, Kulke hears him as a “hero [...] who has emerged victorious from his struggle. ”12 This insight leads Kulke to conclude that in his first compositions, “worldliness [...] had yet to be overcome” as Liszt was still working his way through “a transitional moment of his artistic activity and creativity, as well as of his being as a whole.”13 Liszt’s decision to be ordained as an Abbé was considered by Kulke to be the inevitable consequence of this inner spiritual development – “an outcome to which he was driven by the pull of his innermost being. ”14 For Kulke, the development tentions: “At the passage: ‘das Ewig Weibliche – zieht uns hinan’, a single tenor intones the Gretchen melody, and since it does not fit at all with the words of the text, it virtually has to be chanted, although Liszt may have intended the result, which is to let the work end on a priestly, sublime note. We find this entire ending on the whole more operatic than ecclesiastical, but immensely effective nonetheless.” –h., “Das Wagner-Konzert,” Neues Fremden-Blatt. Morgenausgabe 26 (26 January 1875): 11. 11 August Göllerich, “Siebentes philharmonisches Concert. (3. Symphonie von Brahms. – Hans Richter. – ‘Les Préludes’ von Liszt),” Deutsches Volksblatt. Morgenausgabe 83 (28 March 1889): 2. 12 Ed. K., “Operntheater und Concerte,” 1. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. Daniel Spitzer, on the other hand, describes a different connotation of the “clarifying process”: “Formerly a Tannhäuser, Liszt broke free from the white arms of Frau Venus and turned his back on the Hörselberg, in whose depths such arduous love blazes.” That Liszt’s decision to be ordained as an Abbé was not, in Spitzer’s view, free of a sense of guilt becomes clear in the following sentence: “His kiss-weary lips yearned for the cross and he sank repentantly at the pope’s feet and kissed his consoling slipper.” The cynical undertone, which is hard not to miss in Spitzer’s provocative choice of words, conveys his feeling that Liszt’s change of life was hypocritical, subliminally hinting in the following sentence that the change might have been less sincere than 70 “catholic” programme music? franz liszt’s religiosity in the focus of the viennese press .. of Liszt’s innermost nature can be read from his musical output as clearly as it can from his innermost being, which was ultimately responsible for – and hence reflected in – the compositions’ form. Kulke presents Liszt – attesting him a “religiously inclined nature”15 – as an “earthly arm of God, ” and thus as a composer who felt his mission in life was to spread the values of Christianity to the world through art. There was no doubt for Kulke that this calling felt by Liszt would have also guided his choice of the themes he developed in his programmatic music. Accordingly, he states with regard to Les Préludes: His earlier works are also meant to demonstrate that this was the composer’s intention; for what else could he be wanting to say when he warns us that this whole earthly life is only a prelude, only an overture, what else does he want to awaken in us other than the deep religious feeling that fills his own breast.16 The critic who went by the abbreviation –i. shares Kulke’s view that the essence of Liszt’s symphonic creations can only be truly understood on the basis that “Liszt [...] has always faithful y grasped [the world] according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.” He cites as evidence his conviction that the Dante Symphony demands “to be taken as the musical artistic expression of a man who – according to his nature – was truly devoted to his art and had deeply felt its spirituality during the most sacred hours of his life. ”17 With this statement –i. communicates that he shares his fellow critic Kulke’s assumption that Liszt needed to propagate his Catholic religiosity out into society through his music. In order to gain a deeper understanding of what Kulke and –i. meant to achieve through their criticism, it is necessary to consider the profile of the newspaper in which their reviews appeared. Das Vaterland, subtitled Zeitung für die Österreichische Monarchie, was a daily newspaper published between 1860 and 1911. It had a Catholic-aristocraticorientation and, despite perhaps assumed: “But he was not so world-weary as to seek the tranquillity of a mo-nastery and tonsure the beautiful head that had so often rested upon the bosoms of tender women. He desired only the ordinances of an Abbé, who can pray when he pleases, and live as he pleases, and drink what he pleases.” Sp-r, “Wiener Spaziergänge,” Neue Freie Presse 3376 (18 January 1874): 5. 15 –i., “Feuilleton. Symphonie zu Dante’s ‘Divina commedia’. (Zur zweiten Aufführung im philharmonischen Concerte vom 23. März 1890.),” Das Vaterland 81 (23 March 1890): 1. 16 Ed. K., “Operntheater und Concerte,” 1. 17 –i., “Feuilleton. Symphonie zu Dante’s ‘Divina commedia’,” 4. 71 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today its small circulation of around 8,000 copies, was regarded as the leading organ of the “Catholic movement within the Monarchy.”18 In this context, it is unsurprising that in their reviews –i. and, to a lesser extent, Kulke were un-restrained in their aim of characterising Liszt as a Catholic artist, and both sought to foreground the religious dimension of the works under review. Indeed, in one commentary –i. openly reveals his belief in this goal when he writes: “The Catholic spirit surges forth from the Dante Symphony in a refreshing and invigorating way. This, above al , is what we should emphasise in our paper.”19 Another Das Vaterland critic, von Gemmingen, involved in this religiously accentuated line of discourse within the reception of Liszt’s symphonic programme music and thereby especially aimed at putting a friendly face on the Catholic faith. To this end, he portrays Liszt as an exemplary Christian, as someone whose gracious and benevolent conception of the Christian faith is the “right” one. One can certainly accuse von Gemmingen of missionary zeal here. Thus even in Liszt’s “hell music” from the Dante Symphony, he claims “the cross of faith, forgiveness and hope [shim-mers and shines]”.20 Kulke also emphasises how the care so important in the Christian faith is exemplified by Liszt’s “love of man”, which can be heard in “the outflow of his heart, his ineffable goodness, his whole character.” On this he adds with regard to Liszt, “many [...] do not feel the God who was standing so close to them, until they have moved away from him. ”21 It is significant for the ongoing research that seeks to reappraise the aesthetic reception of Liszt’s symphonic programme music in Vienna plus the debates over its value and legitimacy that little is known about the professional or cultural background of the critics involved. In many cases – such as that of –i. – not even their identity is known. In some others at least basic biographical information can be ascertained with some certain-ty – origin, birth and death dates, educational background, for example. More detailed information, however, which would contextualise the criticism and thus afford deeper understanding, is rare. Such information only exists for a few critics who have already been extensively considered by musicologists. Chief among these is Eduard Hanslick, who back then, and still today, is fondly referred to as the “Pope of critics”, but attention has also al-18 Kurt Paupié, Handbuch der Österreichischen Pressegeschichte 1848–1959, 2 vols., vol. 1: Wien (Vienna, Stuttgart: Braumüller, 1960), 95. 19 –i., “Feuilleton. Symphonie zu Dante’s ‘Divina commedia’,” 4. 20 de Joux, “Concerte,” 9. 21 Ed. K., “Concerte,” 1. 72 “catholic” programme music? franz liszt’s religiosity in the focus of the viennese press .. ready been given to Wilhelm Ambros22. As for Eduard Kulke, little is yet known beyond some key biographical facts. In the context here, however, one thing is rather surprising given his aim, as just discussed, to focus on the religious aspects of Liszt’s work. Kulke’s father was a rabbi, and thus it is likely that he felt closer to Judaism and the Jewish culture than he did to Christian-Catholicism – in stark contradiction to what the passages quoted above would lead one to believe. After his studies, which included mathematics, physics, and German language and literature, he worked as a teacher at an Israeli school in the Hungarian city of Pecs in the late 1850s. He then settled in Vienna, where he was active for many years writing for Jewish publications such as Die Al gemeine Zeitung des Judentums and the Wiener Jahrbuch für Israeliten. He also wrote literary stories, humoresques and sketches throughout his life, most of which revolved around themes related to rural Jewish life. Considering the full range of his criticism of programmatic works – not just by Liszt but also his contemporaries who were also the subject of a lively debate – it is clear that Kulke felt he belonged to the progressive camp of Inhaltsästhetiker (content aesthetes), which explains why he would have defended or justified Liszt’s programmatic repertoire. Given his background, however, it is puzzling why he sought to exploit Liszt’s religious convictions, of all things, for this purpose. Unfortunately, the information about his acculturation, which is seemingly in conflict with his stated views on Liszst’s Catholicism, has only been curso-rily investigated and only exists in lexical, keyword-like form.23 Future cultural studies researchers will need to address such gaps in the biographical knowledge if they are to make any headway in gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of important historical debates, like the one concerning symphonic programme music. Concluding this brief excursion into the field of biographical research, it is worth recalling Eva Diettrich’s insight in her study of the reception of Liszt’s church music compositions that the Liszt oratorios and masses reviewed in the Wiener Kirchenzeitung were not primarily treated as “works of art” – the newspaper did not review any of Liszt’s symphonic programmatic works as such – but rather “examined individual details to uncover 22 Markéta Štědronská, ed., August Wilhelm Ambros: Musikaufsätze und rezensionen 1872–1876. Historischkritische Ausgabe (= Wiener Veröffentlichungen zur Musikwissenschaft 45), 2 vols. (Vienna: Hollitzer, 2017 and 2019). 23 Alexander Rausch, “Kulke, Eduard,” Österreichisches Musiklexikon online, https:// www.musiklexikon.ac.at/ml?frames=no. 73 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today their quasi-dogmatic relevance to the views within the Catholic Church.”24 As has become apparent in the preceding discussion, a similar situation, albeit in a weakened form, pertains to selected moments of the Viennese reception of Liszt’s symphonic programme music. Concluding the reflection on 43 years of reception history, it can be stated that the cited critics’ purpose was section is twofold. First, they wished to legitimise selected symphonic works by Liszt, primarily by using his religiosity as a non-aesthetic criterion. And second, the critics’ characterisation of Liszt as a Christian artist indicates a strategy to promote the Catholic faith as a “religion of grace” by using a famous composer who was also praised as an exemplary Christian – a missionary agenda that is consistent with statements made by Liszt himself. Thus Liszt is reputed to have said – if one is to trust an unsubstantiated claim made by Friedrich W. Riedel – that “the arts are not a religion in themselves, but rather the formal embodiment of the true, Catholic, apostolic, Roman religion.”25 Bibliography Literature Brodbeck, David. Defining Deutschtum . Political Ideology, German Identity, and MusicCritical Discourse in Liberal Vienna (= The New Cultural History of Music Series). New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Diettrich, Eva. “Die Neudeutschen im Spiegel der Wiener katholischen Presse.” In Bruckner Symposion. Bruckner, Wagner und die Neudeutschen in Österreich im Rahmen des Internationalen Brucknerfestes Linz 1984. 20.–23. September 1984, Bericht, edited by Othmar Wessely, 67–70. Linz: Linzer Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986. Fallon-Ludwig, Sandra J. “Religious, Philosophical and Social Significance in the Symphonic Poems of Franz Liszt. ” Dissertation, Brandeis University, 2010. Locke, Ralph P. “Liszt on the Artist in Society.” In Franz Liszt and His World (= The Bard Music Festival Princeton) , edited by Christopher H. Gibbs and Dana Gooley, 291–303. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006. 24 Eva Diettrich, “Die Neudeutschen im Spiegel der Wiener katholischen Presse,” in Bruckner Symposion. Bruckner, Wagner und die Neudeutschen in Österreich im Rahmen des Internationalen Brucknerfestes Linz 1984. 20.–23. September 1984, Bericht, ed. Othmar Wessely (Linz: Linzer Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986), 69. 25 Friedrich W. Riedel, “Die Neudeutsche Schule – ein Phänomen der deutschen Kulturgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Franz Liszt und Richard Wagner. Musikalische und geistesgeschichtliche Grundlagen der neudeutschen Schule. Referate des 3. Europäischen Liszt-Symposiums Eisenstadt 1983 (= Liszt-Studien 3), ed. Serge Gut (Munich, Salzburg: Katzbichler, 1986), 18. 74 “catholic” programme music? franz liszt’s religiosity in the focus of the viennese press .. Merrick, Paul. Revolution and Religion in the Music of Franz Liszt. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Mueller, Rena Charnin. “From the Biographer’s Workshop: Lina Ramann’s Questionnaires to Liszt”. Translated by Susan Hohl. In Franz Liszt and His World (= The Bard Music Festival Princeton) , edited by Christopher H. Gibbs and Dana Gooley, 361–424. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006. Paupié, Kurt. Handbuch der Österreichischen Pressegeschichte 1848–1959, 2 vols. Vol. 1: Wien. Vienna, Stuttgart: Braumüller, 1960. Rausch, Alexander. “Kulke, Eduard.” Österreichisches Musiklexikon online. https://www.musiklexikon.ac.at/ml?frames=no. Riedel, Friedrich W. “Die Neudeutsche Schule – ein Phänomen der deutschen Kulturgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Franz Liszt und Richard Wagner. Musikalische und geistesgeschichtliche Grundlagen der neudeutschen Schule. Referate des 3. Europäischen LisztSymposiums Eisenstadt 1983 (= Liszt-Studien 3), edited by Serge Gut, 13–8. Munich, Salzburg: Katzbichler, 1986. Schumann, Bianca. “Umstrittene Tongemälde. Die Rezeption symphonischer Programmmusik in Wien (1855–1900). ” Dissertation, University of Vienna, 2022. Štědronská, Markéta, ed. August Wilhelm Ambros: Musikaufsätze und rezensionen 1872–1876. Historischkritische Ausgabe (= Wiener Veröffentlichungen zur Musikwissenschaft 45), 2 vols. Vienna: Hollitzer, 2017 and 2019. Walker, Alan. Franz Liszt, 3 vols. Vol. 2: The Weimar Years 1848–1861 (= Great Composer Series). New York: Cornell University Press, 1993. Walker, Alan. Franz Liszt, 3 vols. Vol. 3: The Final Years. 1861–1886 (= Great Composer Series). New York: Cornell University Press, 1996. Periodicals –h. “Das Wagner-Konzert.” Neues FremdenBlatt. Morgenausgabe 26 (26 January 1875): 11. –i. “Feuilleton. Symphonie zu Dante’s ‘Divina commedia’. (Zur zweiten Aufführung im philharmonischen Concerte vom 23. März 1890.).” Das Vaterland 81 (23 March 1890): 1–4. Anon. “(Musikalische Aufführungen.).” Fremden-Blatt. Morgen-Blatt 68 (9 March 1876): 6. de Joux. “Concerte.” Wiener Salonblatt 13 (30 March 1890): 9–10. Ed. K. “Operntheater und Concerte. (Niemann’s Gastspiel. – ‘Iphigenie’. – Franz Liszt. – ‘Les préludes’. – Gesellschaftsconcert. – Eine neue Symphonie von Mendelssohn. – Fräulein Menter. – Orchesterverein. – Ein dankbarer Impresario.).” Das Vaterland 60 (1 March 1869): 1. Ed. K. “Concerte.” Das Vaterland 21 (21 January 1874): 1. 75 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Göllerich, August. “Siebentes philharmonisches Concert. (3. Symphonie von Brahms. – Hans Richter. – ‘Les Préludes’ von Liszt).” Deutsches Volksblatt. Morgenausgabe 83 (28 March 1889): 1–2. Schumann, Bianca. “Ein ‘deutscher’ Franzose? Die Rezeption von Camille Saint-Saëns’ symphonischer Programmmusik im Wiener Pressediskurs (1876– 1889).” Ad Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental Music 17, no. 34 (2019): 103–27. Schumann, Bianca. “Zwischen Ost und West: Franz Liszts nationale Identität in der Wiener Musikkritik (1857–1900).” Studia Musicologica 61, no. 3–4 (2020): 367–79. Schumann, Bianca. “‘Slawische’ Programmmusik? Bedřich Smetanas und Antonín Dvořáks Nationalität im Fokus der Wiener Presse (1887–1918).” Journal of Music Criticism 6 (2022): 39–75. Sp-r. “Wiener Spaziergänge.” Neue Freie Presse 3376 (18 January 1874): 5–6. 76 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.77-88 Music of Progress and the Future: On the Roots of a Fierce Press Feud in the Second Half of the 19th Century Helmut Loos Univerza v Leipzigu Universität Leipzig “Zukunftsmusik” was a catchword that appeared in the mid-19th century and was intended to brand the camp of the “New Germans” in the musical party dispute until it was positively adapted by them. Richard Wagner fuelled the controversy with his essay Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft (1850) and further fanned the flames with an open letter Zukunftsmusik (1861). As the original dedication of the second main aesthetic writing of the Zurich period (1850) to Friedrich Feuerbach on the basis of his writing on The Religion of the Future 1 demonstratively proves, Wagner, according to his own testimony (in the preface to the Col ected Writings and Poems of 1872), “surrendered himself without critical consideration to the guidance” of this “witty writer.”2 This is connected to his decision not to work out a Jesus of Nazareth but a Siegfried, with which Wagner deviated from the primarily Christian theme he had pursued until Lohengrin. He thus came into clear conflict with his supporter and friend Franz Liszt, who had enthusiastically supported Lohengrin. 3 With his move from Weimar to Rome a few years 1 Friedrich Feuerbach, Die Religion der Zukunft (Zurich and Winterthur: Verlag des literarischen Comptoirs, 1843). 2 Richard Wagner, “Introduction,” in Richard Wagner, Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Verlag E. W. Fritzsch, 1872), 4. 3 Helmut Loos, “Richard Wagner’s Lohengrin und sein religionssoziologisches Umfeld,” in Transgression in Music - Międzynarodowa Konferencja 23.–25. listopada/ November 2021, ed. Anna Nowak (Bydgoszcz: Akademia Muzyczna im. Feliksa Nowowiejskiego, forthcoming). 77 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today later, Liszt demonstratively placed himself in the Christian tradition, while Wagner embraced the Germanic myth.4 The Germanic myth of origin and superiority, like the enthusiasm for Greek antiquity, formed an aggressive social antithesis to the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Enlightenment had promoted the search for alternative models of society that could be adapted to the idea of progress and evolution. The resulting modernity in its various forms was united by its opposition to orthodox Judaism and above all Christianity. According to Thomas Nipperdey, the “struggle for Christianity and modernity”5 formed a fundamental root of the socio-political division in the 19th century. Art, with its claim to represent the “true, the good, the beautiful, ” was not unaffected by this, and music in particular, with its processual, quasi-ritual appearance, partially developed into the art religion of modernity. It was not least this inherent moral claim that was responsible for the fierce press feuds,6 which, in contradiction to the world-unifying myth of music, led to hostile camp formations. The music of the future functioned as an exponent of progress. Richard Wagner held Ludwig Bischoff (1794–1867)7 responsible for the introduction of the fighting term “future music.”8 In fact, Bischoff took a decidedly conservative standpoint in the Rheinische (1850–1859) and Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler (1853–1867), both of which he founded and for which he was editorially responsible (until the third volume), and criticised above all the religiously influenced idealisa-tion of artists.9 Bischoff often speaks of “idols” and of “self-deification.”10 In 4 Sibylle Ehringhaus, Germanenmythos und deutsche Identität [Germanic Myth and German Identity], Die Frühmittelalter-Rezeption in Deutschland 1842–1933 (Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswiss, 1996). 5 Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866, Bürgerwelt und starker Staat (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1983, special edition 1998), 403. 6 Beverly Jerold, “Zukunftsmusik/Music of the future. A moral question,” The journal of musicological research 36, no. 4 (2017): 311–35. 7 Robert Lee Curtis , Ludwig Bischoff. A mid-nineteenth-century music critic [Contributions to Rhenish Music History, vol. 123] (Cologne: A. Volk, 1979). 8 Richard Wagner, Sämtliche Schriften und Dichtungen, vol. 8 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, s. a.), 242f. 9 Cf. Helmut Loos, “Das etwas andere Beethoven-Bild des Ludwig Bischoff und seiner Rheinischen und Niederrheinischen Musik-Zeitung,” in Beethoven 9. Studies and Interpretations, ed. Magdalena Chrenkoff (Krakow: Akademia Muzyczna), forthcoming. 10 Ludwig Bischoff, “Was wir wollen,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 1, no. 1 (1850/51): 2; Ludwig Bischoff, “Noch Einmal: Was wir wollen,” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 1, no. 1 (2 July 1853): 78 music of progress and the future. on the roots of a fierce press feud .. his programmatic opening article in 1850, he was convinced of the “development of the life of nations” and the “progress associated with it” as well as of the vitality of beauty, which was “so intimately connected with the noble moral nature of man. ” He could not agree with “the gloomy prophets who predict the complete decline of art, the downfall of the beautiful in the oppressive world domination of the useful.” It is above all music that has “already anticipated the movement of the present, [...] the struggle for the birth of a rejuvenated world, ” “ever since Beethoven opened the gates of the future.” Bischoff opposes the “idolatry” of “the tonal formations of the South and virtuosity” as well as “the prejudice that art has its home only in the higher regions of society.” Bischoff argues vehemently for an art that is not limited to the educated in a circumscribed temple, but serves the whole people, whether it is at home in the church, the concert hall or the theatre (it is remarkable that he does not exclude the church, but calls it equal).11 He opposes a dis-dain for Joseph Haydn, “w hat has been preached and pre-philosophised to us ad nauseam by many musical judges of art and sound, of ‘progress and overcome point of view’.”12 Rather, he is of the opinion that “the heretical thought could not be rejected that art mocks the law of progress, that its course of development is a very peculiar one. ” 13 At first, the Rheinische Musik-Zeitung expressed a benevolent, wait-and-see attitude towards Richard Wagner. In 1850, under “kleinere Götter” (smaller gods), one can read: “What Richard Wagner, the composer of the future, will become, is still to be expected, the best to be hoped for.”14 But the scepticism manifested itself a short time later: For Richard Wagner arises [. .] in some musical circles, as a result of the bellicose allarm raised by the Leipziger musikalische Zeitung, a curious interest is arising; and I think it quite possible that his treatises, rich in ingenious and incisively true thoughts, will also turn the heads of many here in Berlin, despite the confused and one-sided attitude in which they appear so far; the great masses are, as a rule, only capable of extremes and intemperance; nor may it do any harm that the exclusive-2; Ludwig Bischof, “Aus London,” Niederrheinische Musik Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 3, no. 21 (1855): 166. 11 Bischoff, “Was wir wollen,” 1–5. 12 Ludwig Bischoff, “Joseph Haydn’s Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 21 (1850): 161. 13 Ludwig Bischoff, “Plastische Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 46 (1850/51): 363. 14 August Hitzschold, “Die deutschen Opern-Componisten und Dichter,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 2, no. 92 (1851/52): 731–3, here 733. 79 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ly musical endeavours should be contrasted for a time with the absorp-tion of music in poetic inwardness, with the monotonous spinning off of an insignificant motif, with formlessness.15 Even after Ludwig Bischoff left the editorial office, the Rheinische Musik-Zeitung continued to pursue a critical line against Zukunftsmusik, for example when a Mozart review spoke of the “shocking diminished seventh chords, whose nonsensical use in so-cal ed Zukunftsmusik has become not only disgusting but truly sacrilegious. ”16 Musical authorities are readily quoted, such as Ludwig Rellstab in a report from Berlin, who, with regard to the followers of future music, said in the Vossische Zeitung that “the new chaos composers” had “just arrived at the creation of future music, ”17 or François-Joseph Fétis, who, referring to the classics, especially Mozart, opposes the principle of progress among the followers of future music.18 With his newly founded Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung, Ludwig Bischoff takes an even sharper line against future music, so it is quite understandable that the term has been attributed to him.19 Already in the first volume in 1853, Bischoff ironically refers to Richard Wagner: O enviable alliance of the artists of the future, the apostles of the sung drama with the prophets of absolute religion and the aesthetic cult! [. .] A sinister spirit runs through the house of German art and literature!20 In the second volume, an article on “The Opposition of Southern Germany to the Music of the Future” is printed.21 A biblical comparison is used here: Until now [. .] Baal has not yet performed a miracle, no matter how much his prophets prophesied of signs and wonders that Baal would perform at his great festival in Karlsruhe; and therefore we Swabians faithfully honour our old gods and do not want to desecrate their sa-15 G. E., “Berliner Briefe,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 2, no. 93 (1851/52): 738–40, here 739. 16 Echo., “Die Briefarie im ‘Don Juan’,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 6, no. 7 (1855): 373. 17 Anon. “Berlin,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 6, no. 49 (1855): 390f. 18 Anon., “Ein ausländisches Urtheil über unsere neue Opernrichtung,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 7, no. 47 (1856): 369. 19 Christa and Peter Jost, “‘Zukunftsmusik.’ Zur Geschichte eines Begriffs,” Musiktheorie. Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 10, no. 2 (1995): 119–35. According to this, the term was first used by Johann Christian Lobe in 1852. 20 S. in S., “Stoppellese,” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 5 (1853): 38. 21 J. B., “Die Opposition Süddeutschlands gegen die Zukunftsmusik,” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung 2, no. 4 (1854): 29f. 80 music of progress and the future. on the roots of a fierce press feud .. cred temple by erecting an opera altar for the idol Baal, the work of art of the future.22 Without going into the many possible references here, one particularly characteristic one should be singled out: All the ingratitude, the dizziness, all the vanity, all the self-reflection, all the inertia to push on the future what one should accomplish oneself, all the hollowness and hall bathing of the aesthetic chatterers - how beautifully it all sums up in the one word ‘future music’!23 This article has recently been included in a large anthology containing writings on this central music-aesthetic controversy of the 19th century.24 It is the result of a long-term research project initiated by Detlev Altenburg at the Franz Liszt School of Music in Weimar. In contrast to previously common treatises on the New German School, the critical voices are included in this anthology. It contains 12 articles from the Rheinische Musik-Zeitung and 24 from the Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung. James Deaville writes about the selection of articles in his introduction: Quite in contrast to the one-sided perspective [. .] offered by previous, all-too-selective - and thus tendentious - source collections on the New German School, the inclined reader can now follow the debates exactly as they were conducted between the actors involved - we thus also get to read that to which the progressives responded with their writings!25 What Deaville formulates so succinctly here is nothing other than a fundamental critique of the long-prevailing trend in German musicology to perpetuate “master narratives” of music history and to provide them with a scientific claim. I have called this direction the art religion of moderni-ty26 and thus point to the strongly religiously influenced language that is ex-22 Ibid., 30. 23 Lp., “Zukunftsmusik,” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung 7, no. 41 (1859): 324–6, here 325. 24 Dominik von Roth and Ulrike Roesler, eds., Die Neudeutsche Schule – Phänomen und Geschichte. Quellen und Kommentare zu einer zentralen musikästhetischen Kontroverse des 19. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. (Berlin, Kassel: Metzler, Bärenreiter, 2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04923-0. 25 James Deaville, “Introduction,” in Die Neudeutsche Schule – Phänomen und Geschichte. Quellen und Kommentare zu einer zentralen musikästhetischen Kontroverse des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Dominik von Roth and Ulrike Roesler (Berlin, Kassel: Metzler, Bärenreiter, 2020), 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04923-0. 26 Helmut Loos, E-Musik - Kunstreligion der Moderne. Beethoven und andere Götter (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2017). 81 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today pressed in the writings. Thus, beyond the musical, moral decision-making competence is claimed, which in the socio-political debate of the time can clearly be located on the side of modernity. It is no coincidence that the key words autonomy, rationality, individualisation and secularisation or better (according to Nipperdey) de-Christianisation can be found in this musical style.27 The latter is easily recognisable in two prominent representatives, August Wilhelm Ambros (1816–1876) and Eduard Hanslick (1825–1904).28 Eduard Hanslick strongly influenced German musicology with his statement that the content of music is the tonally moving form.29 In his famous essay Vom Musikalisch-Schönen (On Musical Beauty), he excluded all musical genres “that serve certain external purposes, such as church, war and theatre compositions, ” because he discovered that they were “often conventional instead of necessary. ”30 This is particularly evident in his music criticism. For him, the “public concert” is the “main place of music as such,” which “with the exclusion of the actual theatre, church and bal et music, encompasses the entire musical production.”31 Oratorios, for him merely “a surrogate for opera,”32 are characterised by “an ever stronger tendency from the ecclesiastical-religious to the profane-historical.” Robert Schumann “with his secular oratorio (‘Paradise and Peri’ sc.) gave the final blow to the tradition of this artistic genre.”33 In Franz Liszt’s Christus (1st part: Christmas Oratorio), Hanslick sees the composer’s “leap from bril iant virtuosity to church music” as nothing more than “sought-after simplicity and naivety,” “musical frailty and emaciation of the carrier,” “the formal bankruptcy of a tone poet.”34 In contrast, Johannes Brahms’ Triumphlied and Schicksalslied “belong to those great tone poems which rank Brahms among the first mas-27 Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866, 403 – here quoted from the special pa-perback edition (Munich: Beck, 1998). 28 See: Helmut Loos, “The religious dimension of Beethoven reception in the 19th century,” Beethoven 9. Studies and Interpretations, ed. Magdalena Chrenkoff (Krakow: Akademia Muzyczna), forthcoming. 29 Carl Dahlhaus, Die Idee der absoluten Musik, 4th ed. (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2018). 30 Eduard Hanslick, Vom Musikalisch-Schönen. Ein Beitrag zur Revision der Aesthetik der Tonkunst (Leipzig: wbg, 1854), 8. 31 Eduard Hanslick, Geschichte des Concertwesens in Wien 1869 (Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1869), IX. 32 Ibid., 19 and 23. 33 Eduard Hanslick, Concerte, Componisten und Virtuosen der letzten fünfzehn Jahre, 1870–1885. Kritiken [Concerts, Composers and Virtuosos of the last fifteen years. 1870–1885. critiques], 2nd ed. (Berlin: Allgemeiner Verein für Deutsche Literatur, 1886), 17. 34 Ibid., 41f. 82 music of progress and the future. on the roots of a fierce press feud .. ters.”35 The Schicksalslied in particular contains “like an echo of his admirable ‘German Requiem’, the same Christian outlook, only in Greek form. ”36 He cannot deny Beethoven’s Missa solemnis his recognition, but the work is for him a “tone poem that is not both ecclesiastical and sacred in the highest sense.”37 I already pointed out the reception of Beethoven’s Missa solemnis and the absurdity (from a historical-critical perspective, not ‘reception-aesthetic’ interpretation against the author) of numerous attempts at interpretation to deny the work a Christian dimension 25 years ago,38 without this ever being deemed worthy of scholarly discussion. The position that August Wilhelm Ambros (1816–1876)39 took towards Hanslick is usually dismissed casually and somewhat contemptuously in musicological literature.40 This overlooks the great esteem in which both personalities held each other and which they always maintained despite all factual differences. In 1856, two years after Hanslick’s first work, Ambros published his Die Grenzen der Musik und Poesie. Already in the title, Ambros expresses that he does not refer to music alone, but considers it in connection with other arts. Ambros rebukes the “philosophers of form,” the “men of the sounding arabesque,”41 and advises composers “not to resist” the spirit of the time, insofar as it is compatible “with the immutable eternal laws of the true, the good and the beautiful.”42 In a brief outline of the history of music, he 35 Ibid., 51. 36 Ibid., 54. 37 Ibid., 6. 38 Helmut Loos, “Zur Rezeption der Missa solemnis von Ludwig van Beethoven,” Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 82 (1998): 67–76. 39 He was a nephew of Raphael Georg Kiesewetter (1773–1850), a pioneer of the revival and adequate performance of early music, see: Hartmut Krones, “Kiesewetter und die Folgen. Zur Frühzeit der historischen Aufführungspraxis in Wien,” in Early Music in Austria. Research and Practice since 1800. Symposium, Graz, 22–24 March 2007, Report, eds. Barbara Boisits and Ingeborg Harer (Vienna: Mille-Tre-Verl. Schächter, 2009), 9–32, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0mj3.4. His view of history was strictly progressive, empirically rational and determined by Enlightenment thought. See: Raphael Georg Kiesewetter, Geschichte der europäisch-abendländischen oder unserer heutigen Musik. Darstellung ihres Ursprunges, ihres Wachstumhumes und ihrer stufenweisen Entwickelung von dem ersten Jahrhundert des Christenthums bis auf unsre Zeit (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1834). 40 An exception is: Markéta Štědronská, August Wilhelm Ambros im musikästhetischen Diskurs um 1850 [ Münchner Veröffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte 75] (Munich: Allitera, 2015). DNB 41 Ibid., 109. 42 Ibid., 114. 83 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today sketches the path of music as a situational progression with many setbacks from Gregorian chant to the enlightened Germany of his time: “Generally, all the ‘educated’ acquired a religion whose credo was easy to remember, since it was reduced to the dogmas of a ‘supreme being’ and the ‘immortality of the soul’. ”43 Ambros criticises the true zeal in overthrowing and eliminating the old – churches are sold for demolition or converted into ‘useful institutions’, serious ruins of old castles are utilised as ‘granaries’, venerable town halls are ‘tasteful-ly modernised’, and so on. The old cathedrals actually only remained standing because our elders built so unpleasantly solidly.44 This speaks of a high esteem for church music. In the preface to his Culturhistorische Bilder aus dem Musikleben der Gegenwart, dedicated to Franz Liszt, he explicitly acknowledges the musical heritage of the Catholic Church: The more sincerely I belong to the Catholic Church, in which I was born and brought up, the more I wish that excessive zeal should not devastate a part of the very gardens which are richest in blossoms and which the Church has tended and cultivated for centuries.45 Ambros criticises the “philosophical-theoretical speculation,” since it is “partly in fantasies, partly in abstractions,”46 and points out that even the generally comprehensible work of art, apparently based on the purest beauty, does not entirely get rid of the inherited flavour of its origin according to time, place, religious creed, state constitution, climate, etc.47 The controversy between Ambros and Hanslick makes it clear that the musical party formation of the 19th century had a strong socio-political-ideological dimension that was shaped “by the struggle for Christianity and modernity.” Julius Schaeffer already described this clairvoyantly, albeit bi-ased, in 1852: We are in the middle of the struggle of the ‘parties’. Not only the state and the church, not only the old social order is undergoing a process of 43 Ibid., 121. 44 Ibid., 122. 45 August Wilhelm Ambros, Culturhistorische Bilder aus dem Musikleben der Gegenwart (Leipzig: Matthes, 1860; 2nd ed.: Leipzig, 1865), 3. 46 Ibid., 11. 47 Ibid., 8. 84 music of progress and the future. on the roots of a fierce press feud .. decomposition and purification through this struggle, but also art. Immediately after Beethoven - and he himself gave the impetus for this - the split began among musicians between the enthusiastic supporters of the storming and pushing Romanticism and the representatives of an ossified Classicality.48 If absolute music came to dominate in German music literature in the 20th century, this was part of the “relative dechristianisation of our world” (Nipperdey). If church music has been marginalised, if not excluded, in German music historiography as a whole since 1800, this follows the maxims of modernity. At the same time, other branches rose to religious vener-ation: Technology, commerce and the arts, above all music, if it knew how to exist on the concert podium as an ideal counter-world stripped of all social ties (serious music). In a society that believed in science, musicology knew how to adapt skilfully and, as a kind of religious congregation of the musical art religion of modernity, to secure for itself interpretive sovereign-ty and thus a high social position, religious battles included. The scientific claim to strive for objectivity and at least objective neutrality fell by the wayside. Bibliography Literature Ambros, August Wilhelm. Culturhistorische Bilder aus dem Musikleben der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Matthes, 1860; 2nd ed.: Leipzig, 1865. Curtis , Robert Lee. Ludwig Bischoff. A mid-nineteenth-century music critic [Contributions to Rhenish Music History, vol. 123]. Cologne: A. Volk, 1979. Dahlhaus, Carl. Die Idee der absoluten Musik, 4th ed. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2018. Deaville, James. “Introduction.” In Die Neudeutsche Schule – Phänomen und Geschichte. Quel en und Kommentare zu einer zentralen musikästhetischen Kontroverse des 19. Jahrhunderts, edited by Dominik von Roth and Ulrike Roesler, 1–7. Berlin, Kassel: Metzler, Bärenreiter, 2020. https://doi .org/10.1007/978-3-476-04923-0. Ehringhaus, Sibylle. Germanenmythos und deutsche Identität [Germanic Myth and German Identity]. Die Frühmittelalter-Rezeption in Deutschland 1842– 1933. Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswiss, 1996. 48 Julius Schaeffer, “Über Richard Wagner’s Lohengrin, mit Bezug auf seine Schrift: ‘Oper und Drama’,” Neue Berliner Musikzeitung 6, no. 20 (12 May 1852): 153–5; no. 21 (19 May 1852): 161–3; no. 22 (26 May 1852): 169–71. 85 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Feuerbach, Friedrich. Die Religion der Zukunft. Zurich and Winterthur: Verlag des literarischen Comptoirs, 1843. Hanslick, Eduard. Concerte, Componisten und Virtuosen der letzten fünfzehn Jahre, 1870-1885. Kritiken [Concerts, Composers and Virtuosos of the last fifteen years. 1870–1885. critiques], 2nd ed. Berlin: Allgemeiner Verein für Deutsche Literatur, 1886. Hanslick, Eduard. Geschichte des Concertwesens in Wien 1869. Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1869. Hanslick, Eduard. V om Musikalisch-Schönen. Ein Beitrag zur Revision der Aesthetik der Tonkunst. Leipzig: wbg, 1854. Kiesewetter, Raphael Georg. Geschichte der europäisch-abendländischen oder unserer heutigen Musik. Darstellung ihres Ursprunges, ihres Wachstumhumes und ihrer stufenweisen Entwickelung von dem ersten Jahrhundert des Christenthums bis auf unsre Zeit. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1834. Krones, Hartmut. “Kiesewetter und die Folgen. Zur Frühzeit der historischen Aufführungspraxis in Wien.” In Early Music in Austria. Research and Practice since 1800. Symposium, Graz, 22–24 March 2007, Report, edited by Barbara Boisits and Ingeborg Harer, 9–32. Vienna: Mille-Tre-Verl. Schächter, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0mj3.4. Loos, Helmut. E-Musik - Kunstreligion der Moderne. Beethoven und andere Götter. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2017. Loos, Helmut. “Das etwas andere Beethoven-Bild des Ludwig Bischoff und seiner Rheinischen und Niederrheinischen Musik-Zeitung.” In Beethoven 9. Studies and Interpretations, edited by Magdalena Chrenkoff. Krakow, Akademia Muzyczna, forthcoming. Loos, Helmut. “Richard Wagner’s Lohengrin und sein religionssoziologisches Umfeld.” In Transgression in Music - Międzynarodowa Konferencja 23.–25. listopada/November 2021, edited by Anna Nowak. Bydgoszcz: Akademia Muzyczna im. Feliksa Nowowiejskiego, forthcoming. Loos, Helmut. “The religious dimension of Beethoven reception in the 19th century.” Beethoven 9. Studies and Interpretations, edited by Magdalena Chrenkoff. Krakow: Akademia Muzyczna, forthcoming. Nipperdey, Thomas. Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866. Bürgerwelt und starker Staat. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1983, special edition 1998. Roth, Dominik von, and Ulrike Roesler, eds. Die Neudeutsche Schule – Phänomen und Geschichte. Quel en und Kommentare zu einer zentralen musikästhetischen Kontroverse des 19. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. Berlin, Kassel: Metzler, Bärenreiter, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04923-0. 86 music of progress and the future. on the roots of a fierce press feud .. Štědronská, Markéta. August Wilhelm Ambros im musikästhetischen Diskurs um 1850 [ Münchner Veröffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte 75]. Munich: Allitera, 2015. Wagner, Richard. “Introduction.” In: Richard Wagner, Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen, vol. 3, 4. Leipzig: Verlag E. W. Fritzsch, 1872. Wagner, Richard. Sämtliche Schriften und Dichtungen, vol. 8. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, s. a. Periodicals Anon. “Berlin.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 6, no. 49 (1855): 390–1. Anon. “Ein ausländisches Urtheil über unsere neue Opernrichtung.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 7, no. 47 (1856): 369–71. Bischoff, Ludwig. “Joseph Haydn‘s Musik,” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 21 (1850): 161–4. Bischoff, Ludwig. “Was wir wollen.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 1, no. 1 (1850/51): 1–5. Bischoff, Ludwig. “Plastische Musik.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 46 (1850/51): 363–5. Bischoff, Ludwig. “Noch Einmal: Was wir wollen.” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 1, no. 1 (2 July 1853): 1–4. Bischof, Ludwig. “Aus London.” Niederrheinische Musik Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 3, no. 21 (1855): 165–6. Echo. “Die Briefarie im ‘Don Juan’.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 6, no. 7 (1855): 373–4. G. E. “Berliner Briefe.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung für Kunstfreunde und Künstler 2, no. 93 (1851/52): 738–40. Hitzschold, August. “Die deutschen Opern-Componisten und Dichter.” Rheinische Musik-Zeitung 2, no. 92 (1851/52): 731–3. J. B. “Die Opposition Süddeutschlands gegen die Zukunftsmusik.” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung 2, no. 4 (1854): 29–30. Jerold, Beverly. “Zukunftsmusik/Music of the future. A moral question.” The journal of musicological research 36, no. 4 (2017): 311–35. Jost, Christa and Peter. “‘Zukunftsmusik.’ Zur Geschichte eines Begriffs.” Musiktheorie. Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 10, no. 2 (1995): 119–35. Loos, Helmut. “Zur Rezeption der Missa solemnis von Ludwig van Beethoven.” Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 82 (1998): 67–76. Lp. “Zukunftsmusik.” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung 7, no. 41 (1859): 324–6. S. in S. “Stoppellese.” Niederrheinische Musik-Zeitung 1, no. 5 (1853): 37–8. 87 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Schaeffer, Julius. “Über Richard Wagner’s Lohengrin, mit Bezug auf seine Schrift: ‘Oper und Drama’.” Neue Berliner Musikzeitung 6, no. 20 (12 May 1852): 153– 5; no. 21 (19 May 1852): 161–3; no. 22 (26 May 1852): 169–71. 88 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.89-102 Künstlerische vs. politische Aspekte von Musikkritik: Zur Rezeption „ausländischer“ Orchestermusik in der Leipziger Musikpresse des 19. Jahrhunderts Stefan Keym Univerza v Leipzigu Universität Leipzig Das 19. Jahrhundert gilt als eine Epoche des wachsenden Nationalismus’, in der sich diese politische Ideologie zunehmend in allen Lebensbereichen manifestiert hat. Gerade der kulturell-künstlerische Bereich wurde als ein Forum entdeckt, auf dem man nationale Emanzipations- und Hegemonial-bestrebungen besonders wirkungsvoll zur Geltung bringen konnte. Bei den großen Instrumentalmusikgattungen, die zur selben Zeit ebenfalls einen nie dagewesenen Boom erlebten, stand einer solchen Funktionalisierung allerdings – vor allem im deutschsprachigen Raum – die sogenannte „Idee der absoluten Musik“ entgegen, die die „reine Instrumentalmusik“ in den Worten von E. T. A. Hoffmann zu einem „Geisterreich“ verklärte, das nichts gemein habe „ mit der äussern Sinnenwelt“ und ihren menschlichen Konflikten.1 Der Versuch, beide Ideologien miteinander in Einklang zu bringen, führte zu einer seltsam gewundenen, ambivalenten Argumentation, wie sie etwa August Reißmann, selbst Symphonie-Komponist, Mu-siktheoretiker und -schriftsteller, 1873 im Artikel „Deutschland. Deutsche Musik“ des von ihm mitherausgegebenen Musikalischen Conversationslexi-kons vertrat: 1 Anon. [E. T. A. Hoffmann], „Rezension von Beethovens fünfter Symphonie“, Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung [AmZ] 12 (4. Juli 1810): 631. Siehe auch: Carl Dahlhaus, Die Idee der absoluten Musik (Kassel/München: Bärenreiter/dtv, 1978). 89 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Nur weil unsere deutschen Meister die Kunst als Selbstzweck betrachten und üben und nicht einseitig dem nationalen Bedürfnis der Massen unterordnen, gewinnt diese höchste Vollendung.2 Damit machte Reißmann das Prinzip der absoluten Musik zur Grundlage deutscher kulturchauvinistischer Überlegenheitsphantasien. Diese scheinbare Lösung des Widerspruchs zwischen Politisierung und „l’art pour l’art“-Prinzip war indes keineswegs unumstritten. Vielmehr wurde das Kräfteverhältnis dieser beiden Pole im deutschen Musikdiskurs des ‚langen‘ 19. Jahrhunderts immer wieder neu diskutiert. Neben der patriotischen Verklärung von künstlerischen Leistungen einheimischer Komponisten ging es dabei zunehmend auch um die kritische Beurteilung von Beiträgen ‚ausländischer‘ Tonsetzer zu den großen Instrumentalgattungen, deren internationale Vorbildwirkung man zwar begrüßte, ohne jedoch von ihrer Vereinnahmung als deutsches Alleinstellungsmerkmal Abstriche machen zu wollen. Im Folgenden wird diese Entwicklung anhand der Leipziger Musikpresse skizziert. Dabei greife ich zurück auf Ergebnisse eines an der Universität Leipzig durchgeführten DFG-Forschungsprojekts, das sich der Re-Internationalisierung des Symphonik-Repertoires der Leipziger Konzerte und Verlage sowie dessen Resonanz in der Presse widmete.3 Zunächst ist daran zu erinnern, dass die Kanonisierung der großen Instrumentalwerke von Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadé Mozart und vor allem Ludwig van Beethoven zu Klassikern der Tonkunst in den Jahren nach 1800 zusammenfiel mit dem Zerfall des Heiligen Römischen Reichs Deutscher Nation und mit dessen militärischer Bedrohung durch das postrevolutionäre Frankreich unter Napoleon Bonaparte. In dieser prekären Situation, in die man sich heute vielleicht wieder etwas leichter hineinzu-versetzen vermag als in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten, diente Kunst als ein Mittel der Kompensation: An die Stelle des fehlenden Nationalstaats trat die Idee einer Kulturnation (Friedrich Meinecke) und diese benötig-2 August Reissmann, „Deutschland. Deutsche Musik“, in Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon, Bd. 3, Hrsg. August Reissmann und Hermann Mendel (Berlin: Oppenheim, 1873), 138f. 3 Leipzig und die Internationalisierung der Symphonik. Untersuchungen zu Präsenz und Rezeption ‚ausländischer‘ Orchesterwerke im Leipziger Musikleben 1835–1914; DFG-Projekt am Institut für Musikwissenschaft der Universität Leipzig 2011–2015. Siehe dazu: Stefan Keym, „‚Sich mit jedem Tact mehr zu verwundern, und doch mehr zu Haus zu fühlen.‘ Zur Re-Internationalisierung der Symphonik im Leipziger Konzertrepertoire des langen 19. Jahrhunderts“, Die Musikforschung 69 (2016): 318– 44. 90 künstlerische vs. politische aspekte von musikkritik .. te Alleinstellungsmerkmale, die man u.a. in den großen, komplexen Inst-rumentalwerken der drei Wiener Komponisten fand. Die Begeisterung für dieses anspruchsvolle Repertoire wurde maßgeblich durch die Identitätsbedürfnisse des deutschen Bürgertums gefördert: seinen national-patriotischen Gefühlen, aber auch seinen sozialen Bedürfnissen der Abgrenzung nach oben und unten, gegen den traditionsgemäß auf die Oper fokussierten Adel und die vermeintlich kulturlosen Unterschichten. Tatsächlich ging die Aufwertung des neuen Wiener Instrumentalstils von einem lokalen Son-derweg zu einem gesamtdeutschen Kulturerbe publizistisch weniger von der Donauresidenz aus als vielmehr von der sächsischen Buch-, Messe- und Universitätsstadt Leipzig, die im Zuge dieses Prozesses auch zu einer „Musikstadt“ avancierte.4 In der Presse ist dieser Wandel klar erkennbar, insbesondere anhand der Al gemeinen musikalischen Zeitung ( AmZ), der ersten Musikfachzeit-schrift weltweit, die sich länger als nur ein paar Jahre gehalten hat: Lag ihr Schwerpunkt in den ersten Jahrgängen noch stark auf italienischer und französischer Oper (obwohl die Titelbilder mehrheitlich von Porträts mittel- und norddeutscher Komponisten geziert werden), so verschob er sich bald auf Instrumentalmusik und Symphoniekonzerte, einschließlich de-taillierter Aufstellungen der Programme am Leipziger Gewandhaus, die auswärtigen Melomanen als Vorbild empfohlen wurden. Dass der AmZ- Chefredakteur Friedrich Rochlitz zugleich Mitglied der Gewandhaus-Direktion und als solcher verantwortlich für die Zusammenstellung der von ihm in seiner Zeitschrift angepriesenen Konzertprogramme war,5 traf sich dabei ebenso gut wie die Tatsache, dass die AmZ von dem alteingesessenen Musikverlag Breitkopf & Härtel herausgegeben wurde, der einen Großteil der gespielten Werke in seinem Sortiment führte.6 Im Diskurs dominierten anfangs eher lokalpatriotische Töne, die die Bürgerstadt Leipzig gegenüber den höfischen Residenzen Dresden, Berlin und Paris abzugrenzen suchten; außerdem war das Bewusstsein einer star-ken geistig-kulturellen Differenz zwischen dem protestantischen Norden 4 Siehe dazu: Stefan Keym, „The Role of Intercultural Transfers in the Invention of ‚Classical Music‘ in Early Nineteenth-Century Leipzig“, in Intercultural Transfers and Processes of Spatialization, Hrsg. Michel Espagne und Matthias Middell (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2022), 17–36. 5 Siehe: Stefan Horlitz und Marion Recknagel, Hrsg., Musik und Bürgerkultur. Leipzigs Aufstieg zur Musikstadt (Leipzig: Peters, 2007). 6 Siehe: Thomas Frenzel, Hrsg., Breitkopf & Härtel. 300 Jahre europäische Musik- und Kulturgeschichte (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 2019). 91 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today und dem katholischen Süden (inklusive Österreichs), dem sog. „ mittäglichen Deutschland“7 sehr ausgeprägt, dessen Affinität zur italienischen Musik in norddeutschen Zeitschriften des 18. Jahrhunderts oft kritisiert worden war.8 Erst auf dem Höhepunkt der gesamtdeutsch-patriotischen Aufwal-lungen während der Befreiungskriege gegen Napoleon trat eine Tendenz zu musikkulturellem Nationalstolz deutlicher hervor. So bezeichnete der Sondershäuser Hoforganist, -sekretär und Lexikograph Ernst Ludwig Gerber 1813 in der AmZ die Symphonien Haydns, Mozarts und Beethovens als „ das non plus ultra in der neuesten Kunst, das Höchste und Vortrefflichste in der Instrumentalmusik“ und Deutschland als den „ al einigen Sitz dieser Kunstgattung“.9 Dass das kompensatorische Moment solcher Behauptun-gen durchaus reflektiert wurde, belegt die folgende, latent ironische Äußerung von Robert Schumann in seiner 1834 als Alternative zur AmZ gegründeten Neuen Zeitschrift für Musik: Wie [. .] der Franzose seine Revolution, der Engländer seine Schiffahrt usw., so [hat] der Deutsche seine Beethovenschen Symphonien; [. .] mit ihm hat er im Geist die Schlachten wieder gewonnen, die ihm Napoleon abgenommen.10 Schumann spricht hier von einem Rezeptionsphänomen, nicht von einer patriotischen Intention des Komponisten. Dass er einer solchen skeptisch gegenüberstand, zeigen seine Stellungnahmen zu seinem Altersgenos-sen Fryderyk Chopin. Denn zwar begeisterte sich Schumann für dessen neuartige Klaviermusik und unterstrich auch deren politische Wirksam-keit, indem er sie als „ unter Blumen eingesenkte Kanonen“ bezeichnete, die der russische Zar zu fürchten habe; dennoch legte er Chopin bereits 1836 nahe, „ das kleine Interesse der Schol e, auf der er geboren“, dem „ großwelt-bürgerlichen zum Opfer [zu] bringen“ und seine „ zu speciel e sarmatische Physiognomie“ zu einer „ allgemeinen idealen“ weiterzuentwickeln.11 Ganz in diesem Sinn lobte die dritte Leipziger Musikzeitschrift, die von dem Musikverleger Bartolf Senff gegründeten Signale für die musika-7 Anon. [Johann Karl Friedrich Triest], „Bemerkungen über die Ausbildung der Tonkunst in Deutschland im achtzehnten Jahrhundert”, AmZ 3 (1800/01): 277f. 8 Vgl.: Keym, The Role of Intercultural Transfers, 21–3. 9 Ernst Ludwig Gerber, „Eine freundliche Vorstellung über gearbeitete Instrumentalmusik, besonders über Symphonien“, AmZ 15 (14. Juli 1813): 457f. 10 Robert Schumann, „Neue Symphonien für Orchester“, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik [ NZfM] 11 (2. Juli 1839): 1. 11 Robert Schumann, „Pianoforte. Concerte. Friedrich Chopin“, NZfM 4, Nr. 33 (22. April 1836): 138. (Rezension von Chopins Klavierkonzerten). 92 künstlerische vs. politische aspekte von musikkritik .. lische Welt, 1851 den aus Dänemark gebürtigen zeitweiligen Gewandhaus-Kapellmeister Niels W. Gade, er habe in seiner vierten Symphonie das „ nor-dische Element“ absichtlich aus dem Kreise seiner Gedanken und Ideenwelt auszuschlie- ßen gestrebt, um sich von den auf die Dauer hemmenden Einflüssen einer überwiegenden nationalen Färbung möglichst zu emancipiren, und in einem weiteren und höheren Sinne zu schaffen. So manifestirt sich Gade in seiner neuesten Schöpfung schon als ein auf durchaus deut-schem Grund und Boden stehender Componist.12 Vor allem in der späten AmZ gab es auch konservative Kritiker, die den nationalen Aspekt völlig ausklammerten, etwa in ihren Werkbesprechun-gen von Gades erster und zweiter Symphonie.13 In der Neuen Zeitschrift für Musik wiederum, die ab 1845 von der (sich später als „neudeutsch“ bezeich-nenden) „Fortschrittspartei“ um den Liszt- und Wagner-Apologeten Franz Brendel geleitet wurde, beklagte man den bewussten Verzicht Gades auf nationale Elemente in dessen vierter Symphonie: Jenes eigenthümliche, nationale Colorit, welches bei Gade’s Musik so sehr anzieht, fehlt dieser Symphonie bis auf einige wenige Züge ganz; der Componist bestrebt sich darin deutsch zu sein, und verliert dadurch seine Ursprünglichkeit.14 Tatsächlich lässt sich bei der Publikumsresonanz von Gades Symphonien kein eindeutiger Zusammenhang mit deren nationaler Färbung fest-stellen. So wurde Gades heitere, „ kosmopolitische“ vierte Symphonie ebenso oft gespielt wie die national kolorierten Nr. 1 und 3.15 Die drei hier an Beispielen aus der von Mendelssohn, Schumann (und Gade!) geprägten kurzen Leipziger „Glanzzeit“ aufgezeigten Haltungen der Presse im Umgang mit dem Nationalen in der Symphonik – Ausklam-merung/Ablehnung, ambivalente Würdigung und Befürwortung/Forderung – haben den Diskurs der Leipziger Musikpresse auch in den folgenden Jahrzehnten bestimmt. 12 V., „Zwölfte Ubonnementconcert“, Signale für die musikalische Welt [SMW] 9, Nr. 4 (Januar 1851): 35f. 13 A. K. [August Kahlert], „Recenzion“, AmZ 45, Nr. 49 (6. Dezember 1843): 879; R.+, „Nachrichten“, AmZ 46, Nr. 4 (24. Januar 1844): 62f. 14 F. G., „Leipziger Musikleben“, NZfM 36, Nr. 4 (24. Januar 1851): 37. 15 Siehe: Yvonne Wasserloos, Kulturgezeiten. Niels W. Gade und C.F.E. Horneman in Leipzig und Kopenhagen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2004), 285. 93 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Manche konservativen Kritiker erklärten sich für schlichtweg unzu-ständig bei national intendierten fremdländischen Kompositionen. So be-merkte ein Rezensent der Signale 1861 über die Ouvertüre zu Michail Glinkas Oper Ein Leben für den Zaren, die „ nationale Bedeutung“ des Werks könne er gar „ nicht würdigen […], denn wir gehören nicht zu den Untertha-nen des ‚Kaisers al er Reußen [sic]‘“.16 Einige Rezensenten lehnten nationale Aspekte in der Symphonik kategorisch ab. So ließ sich Eduard Bernsdorff, der langjährige Chefkritiker der Signale, „ specifisch national-musikalische Nachempfindungen“ allenfalls dann gefallen, wenn sie einestheils nicht mit zu großer Prätention und in zu breiter Ausdeh-nung auftreten, anderntheils es dem außerhalb der gerade im Spiele sei-enden Nationalität Stehenden nicht allzuschwer machen, sich mit dem Fremdartigen zu versöhnen – eine Bedingung, die er bei Antonín Dvořáks Slavischen Tänzen eher er-füllt sah als etwa bei der Skandinavischen Symphonie des Briten Frederick H. Cowen.17 Dieses Urteil erklärt sich daraus, dass Bernsdorff (wie er mit Bezug auf Johan Svendsens zweite Symphonie klarstellte) „ vor al en Din-gen […] in den höheren Kunstgattungen der Sinfonie, Sonate u.s.w. “ „ keine Sympathie für das Nationalitätsprincip in der Musik“ hegte.18 Auch Bernhard Vogel äußerte 1882 in der Neuen Zeitschrift für Musik deutliche Skepsis gegenüber der Verwendung „ südslavischer Volksweisen“ in Anton Rubinsteins fünfter Symphonie, „ weil das Slaventhum in solcher Ausgespro-chenheit für symphonische Werke früher nicht verwerthbar schien“.19 Und in Piotr Čajkovskijs zweiter Symphonie hielt er russische Volksweisen nur unter der Voraussetzung für tolerabel, dass „ der Patriot nicht auf Kosten des Künst lers sich breit“ mache.20 Im späten 19. Jahrhundert ist eine zunehmende Durchdringung von ästhetischen Argumenten mit nationalistischem Denken erkennbar. Dies lässt sich exemplarisch zeigen am Diskurs über „ motivisch-thematischer Arbeit“, die im deutschen Raum seit einer 1844 von Johann Christian Lobe 16 Anon., „Achtes Ubonnementconcert in Leipzig“, SMW 19, Nr. 51 (5. Dezember 1861): 709. 17 SMW 44 (Dezember 1886), 1176. 18 G. S., „Fünftes Ubonnement=Concert im Saale des Gewandhauses zu Leipzig“, SMW 35, Nr. 63 (November 1877): 995. 19 Bernhard Vogel, „Werke für Orchester“, NZfM 78, Nr. 4 (22. Januar 1882): 40. 20 Bernhard Vogel, „Werke für Orchester“, NZfM 77, Nr. 15 (8. April 1881): 157. 94 künstlerische vs. politische aspekte von musikkritik .. publizierten Kompositionslehre21 explizit als eines der wichtigsten Stil- und Qualitätskriterien galt, das einem Instrumentalwerk innere Geschlossen-heit, Autonomie und damit Dauerhaftigkeit verlieh.22 1859 behauptete der junge Felix Draeseke, Schüler Liszts, aber zuvor auch des Leipziger Conservatoriums, in der Neuen Zeitschrift für Musik, nur wenige „Ausländer“ hätten bislang die „ Meisterschaft in dieser Kunst der Durcharbeitung“ erlangt; dies sei der Grund, weshalb „ bis zu Berlioz’ Erscheinen deutsche Autoren allein in der Instrumentalmusik geherrscht haben“.23 Walter Niemann führte die Distanz vieler nationaler Symphoniker gegenüber der thematischen Arbeit auf ein satztechnisches Argument zurück: Aus der „ aufs Volkslied zu-rückgreifenden Fundamentierung al ’ der slavischen und skandinavischen ‚nationalen‘ Schulen“ resultiere das „Erbübel“,24 dass wir ungezählte Wiederholungen einzelner Phrasen, transponierte Repeti-tionen weiter Perioden [gewinnen], aber keinen Ersatz für die fehlenden logisch ersonnenen und zielbewusst gestalteten Entwickelungen.25 Andere Autoren gingen einen Schritt weiter, indem sie Stilmerkma-le wie eine repetitive thematische Struktur oder scharfe Stimmungswech-sel auf Einflüsse der Landschaft, der Geschichte oder des klischeehaft dar-gestellten vermeintlichen Charakters der Nation zurückführten, der der jeweilige Komponist angehörte. So war namentlich bei russischen Komponisten oft von „ geistesarmen Wiederholungen“,26 Barbarei27 und vom Ein-satz der Knute die Rede, etwa mit Bezug auf Vassilij Kalinnikovs Symphonie g-Moll: 21 Johann Christian Lobe, Compositions-Lehre oder umfassende Theorie von der thematischen Arbeit und den modernen Instrumentalformen, aus den Werken der besten Meister entwickelt und durch die mannigfaltigsten Beispiele erklärt (Weimar: Voigt, 1844). 22 Siehe dazu: Stefan Keym, Hrsg., Motivisch-thematische Arbeit als Inbegriff der Musik. Zur Geschichte und Problematik eines ‚deutschen‘ Musikdiskurses (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2015). 23 Felix Draeseke, „Michael Glinka“, NZfM 51, Nr. 15 (7. Oktober 1859): 125. 24 Walter Niemann, „Die ausländische Klaviermusik der Gegenwart“, NZfM 101, Nr. 7 (8. Februar 1905): 135. 25 Walter Niemann, „Neue Klaviersonaten I“, NZfM 102, Nr. 7 (14. Februar 1906): 160 (zu Milij Balakirev). 26 C. M., „XX. Gewandhauskonzert“, NZfM 100, Nr. 12 (16. März 1904): 227f. (zu Tschaikovskijs fünfter Symphonie). 27 Eduard Bernsdorff, „Drittes Ubonnement=Concert im Saale des Gewandhauses zu Leipzig“, SMW 55, Nr. 48 (26. Oktober 1897): 754 (zu Nikolaj Rimskij-Korsakovs Scheherazade). 95 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Wenn da plötzlich an unvermuteter Stelle der Aufruhr in allen Inst-rumenten losbricht, wenn die Bläser mit vollen Backen arbeiten, die Streicher in den höchsten Lagen winseln, da wird man den Gedanken an Sibirien, an ein Rudel bissiger Wölfe, an eine Horde ungeschlachter Bauern, die mit der Wodkaflasche dahergeschwankt kommen, und – an die gefürchtete Knute nicht los.28 Während sich das Leipziger Bild von russischer Symphonik erst allmählich entwickelte und zunächst stark variierte,29 war der Blick auf französische Musik über weite Strecken des 19. Jahrhunderts sehr stereotyp und negativ. Bereits in der ersten Jahrhunderthälfte hatte sich hier eine Art Feindbild entwickelt, das primär von Oper und Operette geprägt war. Es kreiste um das kulturchauvinistische, später auch rassistisch unterfütterte Klischee, Franzosen könnten aufgrund ihres Nationalcharakters gar nicht anders, als leichte, frivole Musik zu schreiben, die zwar technisch gut gemacht sei (vor allem in der Orchestration) und daher wirkungsvolle Effekte und einigen Esprit biete, aber letztlich immer oberflächlich bleibe.30 So urteilte die Al gemeine musikalische Zeitung anlässlich eines ausschließlich Werken französischer Komponisten gewidmeten Konzerts, das 1876 (also nur fünf Jahre nach dem Deutsch-Französischen Krieg!) am Gewandhaus stattfand, über Hector Berlioz, er verstehe es zwar, seine Gedanken in interessante thematische Verflechtungen zu bringen, sowie im gros-sen Ganzen geistvoll und wirksam zu gruppiren; freilich stellen sich diese Gedanken nicht als innere Gemüthsergüsse, sondern als Reflexe des combinirenden Verstandes dar.31 Berlioz’ Harold-Symphonie sei daher zwar „ ein höchst geistreiches, nicht aber zugleich ein gemütherhebendes und ideales Werk“. Auch Camille Saint-Saëns’ zweiter Symphonie wurde von den Signalen ein „tieferes Be-rührtwerden“ der Hörer kategorisch abgesprochen.32 28 M-r., Leipziger Zeitung, 9. November 1904. 29 Siehe dazu: Stefan Keym, „Auffrischung oder Abweichung von der Tradition? Prä- senz und Wahrnehmung russischer Symphonik in Leipzig bis 1914“, in Russische Musik in Westeuropa bis 1917: Ideen – Funktionen – Transfers, Hrsg. Stefan Keym und Inga Mai Groote (München: edition text & kritik, 2018), 73–111. 30 Siehe: Fritz Reckow, „‚Wirkung‘ und ‚Effekt‘. Über einige Voraussetzungen, Tendenzen und Probleme der deutschen Berlioz-Kritik“, Die Musikforschung 33 (1980): 1–36. 31 AMZ, Neue Folge 11 (19. Januar 1876): 46. 32 Eduard Bernsdorf, „Achzehntes Aubonnent=Concert im Saale des Gewandhauses zu Leipzig“, SMW 37, Nr. 18 (Februar 1879): 275. 96 künstlerische vs. politische aspekte von musikkritik .. Louis Köhler gestand Saint-Saëns zwar einen „ guten Einfal “ für ein „ Motiv von orchestergemäßer Natur“ zu, warf ihm jedoch vor, es nicht in den Dienst einer umfassenden Idee zu stellen, sondern als Selbstzweck „ klug am Draht“ zu führen und „ sich nett ausnehmen“ zu lassen. Während bei dem französischen Komponisten an die Stelle eines „ tiefen Gefühlslebens“ und „ deutschen Gemüths“ Reflexion und Phantasie träten, bleibe der Hörer im Herzen kalt; immerhin erfreue diese Musik seinen Verstand ähnlich wie „ gewisse feine Gebilde künstlerischer Industrie“.33 Auch das 1870 gegründete Musikalische Wochenblatt urteilte, bei diesem Werk interessiere „ die pikante Handhabung der äußeren Mittel“ mehr als der „ ideel e Gehalt“.34 Die Neue Zeitschrift für Musik billigte Saint-Saëns zwar technische Meisterschaft und Geistreichtum zu,35 jedoch keine „ thematische Ver-tiefung“36 oder „ tiefere Durcharbeitung“,37 denn als Franzose habe er kein „ wahrhaftes Verständnis“ für die „ Tiefe deutschen Wesens“. Das Klischee von der oberflächlichen französischen Musik wurde übrigens dadurch genährt, dass man in Leipziger Konzerten, sofern man überhaupt französische Werke aufführte, am liebsten kurze, leichte Stücke spielte wie die erste Arlésienne-Suite und Roma von Georges Bizet, Le Rouet d’Omphale („Das Rad der Omphale“) von Saint-Saëns oder L’Apprenti-sor-cier („Der Zauberlehrling“) von Paul Dukas, während die „Orgelsympho-nie“ (Nr. 3) von Saint-Saëns und die Symphonie d-Moll von César Franck bis 1914 nur je einmal, die Symphonien von Vincent d’Indy gar nicht und Musik von Claude Debussy erst ab 1905 präsentiert wurde. Debussys Prélude à l’après-midi d’un faune wurde bei seiner Leipziger Erstaufführung als „ Nippfigurenmusik“ und „ Farbenorgie“ von „ gänzlicher Erfindungs- und Gedankenarmut“38 verunglimpft. Auch Debussys drei Or-chesterbilder Iberia wurden 1908 nur als „ kinematographen-ähnliche und al erdings genial übermalte drastische Wirklichkeitsaufnahmen“ wahrge-33 L. K. [Louis Köhler], „Deuxième Symphonie (en La mineur) par Camille Saint-Saëns“, SMW 37, Nr. 51 (Oktober 1879): 802. 34 Musikalisches Wochenblatt 10 (28. Februar 1879): 118. 35 F. Stade, „Correspondenzen. Leipzig“, NZfM 72, Nr. 52 (22. Dezember 1876): 519 (zu Danse macabre). 36 V. B., „Concert= und Kammermusik“, NZfM 72, Nr. 3 (14. Januar 1876): 23 (zum Konzertstück op. 20). 37 Z., „Correspondenzen“, NZfM 73, Nr. 48 (23. November 1877): 508 (zu Le Rouet d’Omphale; ebenso die beiden folgenden Zitate). 38 Leipziger Volkszeitung, 17. Oktober 1905; Paul Merkel, Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 17. Oktober 1905, 18; C. K. [Carl Kipke], „Berichte. Leipzig“, Musikalisches Wochenblatt 36, Nr. 43 (26. Oktober 1905): 766. 97 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today nommen und als „ disharmonierendes Nebeneinander und Nacheinander von Klängen, Melodiebrocken und Geräuschen, nicht aber als eigenständig wertvol e und wirklich edle Kunstwerke“.39 Immerhin mahnte Walter Niemann schon 1904 mit Blick auf „ jungfranzösische Klaviermusik“: Wir müssen uns gerade hier vor der Anwendung falscher Massstäbe hü- ten. Wir müssen suchen, uns in das Fühlen und Denken eines romani-schen Volkes, das nun eben von dem unsrigen in den meisten Beziehungen abweichend ist, einzuleben.40 1912 kritisierte Niemann Unmutsbezeugungen eines Teils des Gewandhaus-Publikums gegenüber Debussys Nocturnes und empfahl sogar, ein ganzes Konzert neuen Werken dieser „ großen fremden Nation“ zu wid-men und dadurch „ produktive und, wie sich herausstel en wird, viel eicht notwendige Anregungen“ für die Weiterentwicklung der einheimischen Musik zu empfangen.41 Bereits 1886 hatte Martin Krause im Leipziger Tageblatt argumentiert, dass „ unsere vol ständig ausgenützte Rhythmik dringend der Auffrischung mit Hilfe der Anregung von Außen bedarf“.42 Detlef Schultz betonte anlässlich eines reinen Čajkovskij-Konzerts 1900, je mehr die einheimische Produktion im Bereich der „ Instrumentalformen der deutschen Classiker“ an Bedeutung verliere, desto williger nehme man „ ausländische Leistungen auf, die ihr neue Säfte zuführen könnten.“43 Ein Rezensent der Leipziger Zeitung begrüßte Borodins erste Symphonie sogar als „ wahres Labsal […] inmitten der Unmasse von Kapel meistermusik, die in Deutschland pro-39 Arthur Smolian, „Musikbriefe“, SMW 66, Nr. 7 (12. Februar 1908): 214; Eugen Segnitz, „Konzerte. Leipzig“, NZfM/ Musikalisches Wochenblatt 104/39, Nr. 7 (3. Februar 1908): 180. 40 Walter Niemann, „Neue jungfranzösische Klavierkunst“, NZfM 100, Nr. 9 (24. Februar 1904): 151. 41 Walter Niemann, „17. Gewandhauskonzert“, Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 16. Februar 1912, 17. 42 Martin Krause, „Musik. Siloti-Concert“, Leipziger Tageblatt, 11. Oktober 1886. Das Benefizkonzert am 9. Oktober 1886 bestritt Alexander Siloti im alten Gewandhaus-saal mit den vereinigten Kapellen der Königlich-sächsischen Regimenter Nr. 107 und 312. Auf dem Programm standen u. a. Glinkas Ouvertüre zu Ruslan und Ljud-mila, Čajkovskijs Violinkonzert (Solist: Adolph Brodskij) sowie Elegie und Variatio-nen aus seiner dritten Orchestersuite. 43 Detlef Schultz, „Musik. Tschaikowsky-Feier in der Alberthalle“, Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 23. März 1900. Das Konzert am 21. März 1900 in der Alberthalle mit dem Winderstein-Orchester unter Leitung von Alexander Chessin umfasste die sechste Symphonie, Romeo und Julia, das zweite Klavierkonzert (mit Sophie Menter als Solistin) und die Nussknacker-Suite. 98 künstlerische vs. politische aspekte von musikkritik .. ducirt wird! “44 Die These, dass die deutsche Musik dekadent sei und daher etwas von fremden Künstlern lernen könne, wurde in den ersten Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts immer häufiger geäußert. Lauter blieben jedoch die Stimmen, die wie Bernhard Vogel „ vor dem wahl osen Cultus“ warnten, „ den man mit slavischen Componisten neuerdings so gern treibt“,45 während viele einheimische Talente „ seit langem auf irgendwelche Berücksichtigung“ schmachteten.46 Insgesamt betrachtet weist der Leipziger Musikdiskurs des 19. Jahrhunderts über ‚ausländische‘ Orchestermusik ein hohes Maß an Kontinu-ität auf. Diese beruhte insbesondere auf einer engen Verflechtung ästhetischer und politischer Kriterien. Obwohl die Leipziger Musikkritik generell weniger offen nationalistisch eingestellt war als die in der neuen Reichs-hauptstadt Berlin (ab 1871), stand sie den meisten Gattungsbeiträgen ausländischer Komponisten skeptisch gegenüber. Gerade weil die Symphonik für die Rückversicherung der deutschen und speziell der Leipziger kulturellen Identität so wichtig war, aber auch, weil man sich nur schwer von den Kategorien einer über viele Jahre gepflegten (wenngleich zunächst aus Wien importierten) Symphoniekultur zu emanzipieren vermochte, hielt sich die Offenheit für Neues und Fremdes, wie sie für eine international ausgerichtete Handelsstadt eigentlich üblich ist, in engen Grenzen. Dies sollte sich erst im Lauf des 20. Jahrhunderts ändern. Bibliographie Literatur Dahlhaus, Carl. Die Idee der absoluten Musik. Kassel/München: Bärenreiter/dtv, 1978. Frenzel, Thomas, Hrsg. Breitkopf & Härtel. 300 Jahre europäische Musik- und Kulturgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 2019. Horlitz, Stefan, und Marion Recknagel, Hrsg. Musik und Bürgerkultur. Leipzigs Aufstieg zur Musikstadt. Leipzig: Peters, 2007. Keym, Stefan, Hrsg. Motivisch-thematische Arbeit als Inbegriff der Musik. Zur Geschichte und Problematik eines ‚deutschen‘ Musikdiskurses. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2015. 44 Pf., Leipziger Zeitung, 16. Februar 1892, 599. 45 Bernhard Vogel, Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 22. Oktober 1897. 46 Bernhard Vogel, „Die Leipziger Tonkünstlerversammlung des ‚Allg. Deutschen Musikvereins‘“, NZfM, 10. Juni 1896, 289–91, hier 290. 99 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Keym, Stefan. „‚Sich mit jedem Tact mehr zu verwundern, und doch mehr zu Haus zu fühlen.‘ Zur Re-Internationalisierung der Symphonik im Leipziger Konzertrepertoire des langen 19. Jahrhunderts“. Die Musikforschung 69 (2016): 318–44. Keym, Stefan. „Auffrischung oder Abweichung von der Tradition? Präsenz und Wahrnehmung russischer Symphonik in Leipzig bis 1914“. In Russische Musik in Westeuropa bis 1917: Ideen – Funktionen – Transfers, hrsg. von Stefan Keym und Inga Mai Groote, 73–111. München: edition text & kritik, 2018. Keym, Stefan. „The Role of Intercultural Transfers in the Invention of ‚Classical Music‘ in Early Nineteenth-Century Leipzig“. In Intercultural Transfers and Processes of Spatialization, hrsg. Von Michel Espagne und Matthias Middell, 17–36. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2022. Lobe, Johann Christian. Compositions-Lehre oder umfassende Theorie von der thematischen Arbeit und den modernen Instrumentalformen, aus den Werken der besten Meister entwickelt und durch die mannigfaltigsten Beispiele erklärt. Weimar: Voigt, 1844. Reissmann, August. „Deutschland. Deutsche Musik“. In Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon, Bd. 3, hrsg. von August Reissmann und Hermann Mendel, 137–9. Berlin: Oppenheim, 1873. Wasserloos, Yvonne. Kulturgezeiten. Niels W. Gade und C.F.E. Horneman in Leipzig und Kopenhagen. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2004. Zeitschriften A. K. [August Kahlert]. „Recenzion“. Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 45, Nr. 49 (6. Dezember 1843): 879–82. AMZ. Neue Folge 11 (19. Januar 1876): 46. Anon. [E. T. A. Hoffmann]. „Rezension von Beethovens fünfter Symphonie“. Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung [AmZ] 12 (4. Juli 1810): 631. Anon. [Johann Karl Friedrich Triest]. „Bemerkungen über die Ausbildung der Tonkunst in Deutschland im achtzehnten Jahrhundert”. Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 3 (1800/01): 277f. Anon. „Achtes Ubonnementconcert in Leipzig“. Signale für die musikalische Welt 19, Nr. 51 (5. Dezember 1861): 709. Bernsdorf, Eduard. „Achzehntes Aubonnent=Concert im Saale des Gewandhauses zu Leipzig“. Signale für die musikalische Welt 37, Nr. 18 (Februar 1879): 274–5. Bernsdorff, Eduard. „Drittes Ubonnement=Concert im Saale des Gewandhauses zu Leipzig“. Signale für die musikalische Welt 55, Nr. 48 (26. Oktober 1897): 754–5. 100 künstlerische vs. politische aspekte von musikkritik .. C. K. [Carl Kipke]. „Berichte. Leipzig“. Musikalisches Wochenblatt 36, Nr. 43 (26. Oktober 1905): 766. C. M. „XX. Gewandhauskonzert“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 100, Nr. 12 (16. März 1904): 227f. Draeseke, Felix. „Michael Glinka“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 51, Nr. 15 (7. Oktober 1859): 125. F. G. „Leipziger Musikleben“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 36, Nr. 4 (24. Januar 1851): 37–8. G. S. „Fünftes Ubonnement=Concert im Saale des Gewandhauses zu Leipzig“. Signale für die musikalische Welt 35, Nr. 63 (November 1877): 994–5. Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. „Eine freundliche Vorstellung über gearbeitete Instrumentalmusik, besonders über Symphonien“. Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 15 (14. Juli 1813): 457f. Krause, Martin. „Musik. Siloti-Concert“. Leipziger Tageblatt, 11. Oktober 1886. Leipziger Volkszeitung, 17. Oktober 1905. M-r. Leipziger Zeitung, 9. November 1904. Merkel, Paul. Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 17. Oktober 1905, 18. Musikalisches Wochenblatt 10 (28. Februar 1879): 118. Niemann, Walter. „Neue jungfranzösische Klavierkunst“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 100, Nr. 9 (24. Februar 1904): 151. Niemann, Walter. „Die ausländische Klaviermusik der Gegenwart“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 101, Nr. 7 (8. Februar 1905): 135. Niemann, Walter. „Neue Klaviersonaten I“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 102, Nr. 7 (14. Februar 1906): 160. Niemann, Walter. „17. Gewandhauskonzert“. Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 16. Februar 1912, 17. Pf. Leipziger Zeitung, 16. Februar 1892, 599. R.+. „Nachrichten“, Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 46, Nr. 4 (24. Januar 1844): 57–64. Reckow, Fritz. „‚Wirkung‘ und ‚Effekt‘. Über einige Voraussetzungen, Tendenzen und Probleme der deutschen Berlioz-Kritik“. Die Musikforschung 33 (1980): 1–36. Schultz, Detlef. „Musik. Tschaikowsky-Feier in der Alberthalle“. Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 23. März 1900. Schumann, Robert. „Pianoforte. Concerte. Friedrich Chopin“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 4, Nr. 33 (22. April 1836): 137–9. Schumann, Robert. „Neue Symphonien für Orchester“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik [NZfM] 11 (2. Juli 1839): 1. 101 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Segnitz, Eugen. „Konzerte. Leipzig“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik/Musikalisches Wochenblatt 104/39, Nr. 7 (3. Februar 1908): 180. Signale für die musikalische Welt 44 (Dezember 1886): 1176. Smolian, Arthur. „Musikbriefe“. Signale für die musikalische Welt 66, Nr. 7 (12. Februar 1908): 214. Stade, F. „Correspondenzen. Leipzig“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72, Nr. 52 (22. Dezember 1876): 519. V. „Zwölfte Ubonnementconcert“. Signale für die musikalische Welt [SMW] 9, Nr. 4 (Januar 1851): 35f. V. B. „Concert= und Kammermusik“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 72, Nr. 3 (14. Januar 1876): 23. Vogel, Bernhard. „Werke für Orchester“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 77, Nr. 15 (8. April 1881): 157. Vogel, Bernhard. „Werke für Orchester“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 78, Nr. 4 (22. Januar 1882): 40. Vogel, Bernhard. „Die Leipziger Tonkünstlerversammlung des ‚Allg. Deutschen Musikvereins‘“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 10. Juni 1896, 289–91, hier 290. Vogel, Bernhard. Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, 22. Oktober 1897. Z. „Correspondenzen“. Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 73, Nr. 48 (23. November 1877): 508. Musikzeitschriften Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (AmZ) Neue Zeitschrift für Musik (NZfM) Signale für die musikalische Welt (SMW) Musikalisches Wochenblatt Tageszeitungen Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten Leipziger Tageblatt Leipziger Volkszeitung Leipziger Zeitung 102 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.103-130 Emil Břetislav Lvovský or Who was the harshest Viennese critic of Antonín Dvořák’s music? Viktor Velek Univerza v Ostravi University of Ostrava State of Research The life and work of Emil Břetislav Lvovský show a very wide spectrum of activities. This study will focus on his biography and journalistic activities, but he can also be viewed from other perspectives: as a composer, as a teacher, as a musician (pianist, double bass player) or as a librettist. In terms of methodology, this paper applies chronology, with the introduction mapping the “state of research” (literature, sources). Literature The mention in a Czech obituary from 1910 that Lvovský was “a well-known composer and writer”1 reflects his increased compositional activity at the end of his life, or his merits in the form of messages he sent to Prague from Lviv and Vienna. The Viennese-Czech cultural worker Jan Heyer (1883– 1942) noted in 1940 that “the books on the history of Czech music and Czech encyclopaedias are silent about him [Lvovský].”2 That was true concerning the past, but in the same year the musicologist Vladimír Helfert (1886–1945) offered a personal entry in Pazdírek’s Musicians Dictionary. 3 Helfert may 1 Anon., “Zprávy. Úmrtí,” Česká hudba 4, no. 12 (1910): 97. 2 Jan Heyer, “Česká hudební viennensia. Poznámky a doplňky k dosavadnímu zpracování látky,” Dunaj. Menšinová revue 17, no. 3–4 (1940): 349. 3 Vladimír Helfert, “Lvovský, Břetislav,” in Pazdírkův hudební slovník naučný. II. Část osobní – Svazek druhý L–M, eds. Oldřich Pazdírek, Gracian Černušák and Vladimír Helfert (Brno: Oldřich Pazdírek 1940), 70. 103 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today have drawn on Heyer’s detailed and in many respects unsurpassed profile. Bohumír Štědroň (1905–1982) certainly did so some twenty years later in his personal entry for the Czechoslovak Dictionary of Persons and Institutions (1963) – let’s quote his biographical part (at the end of the entry there is a list of several compositions, publishers and a selected bibliography): A Czech composer and double bassist, born 10 September 1857, Prague, died 12 July 1910, Vienna. His own name was Emil Pick. He studied the double bass with František Simandl in Vienna. He taught the double bass at a conservatory in Lviv (1884–1890), lived briefly in Berlin, and finally in Vienna (from 1890) until his death. He contributed to the music periodical Dalibor with reports on concert life in Lviv (VII–1885 to XII–1890) and in Vienna (XIII–1891 to XVII–1895). Editor of the periodicals Oesterreichische Musik und Theaterzeitung and Neue musikalische Presse (1895 to 1908), where he zealously promoted Czech music and organised the musical life of the Czech minority in Vienna.4 However, some passages of Štědroň’s entry are rather problematic or need to be confirmed or corrected and made more precise. The following are three of the most controversial or incorrect statements this study will comment on: – Lvovský was a double bass teacher at the Lviv Conservatory in 1884–1890. – Lvovský sent “messages from Lviv” to the periodical Dalibor (1885–1890). – Lvovský stayed briefly in Berlin. More detailed but sketchy information about him can be found in memoir-type literature.5 In 2013, together with the musicologist Vlasta Reittererová, I published a text in which Lvovský was dealt with as a music critic in connection with the periodical Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung.6 Interesting information about Lvovský as a critic is provided by the 4 Bohumír Štědroň, “Lvovský, Břetislav,” in Československý hudební slovník osob a institucí. První díl, A–L, eds. Gracian Černušák, Bohumír Štědroň and Zdenko Nováček (Praha: Státní hudební nakladatelství 1963), 851. 5 Leoš Karel Žižka, Mistři a mistříčkové (Praha: L. K. Žižka, 1947), 87. 6 Vlasta Reittererová and Viktor Velek, “Die Rezeption der tschechischen Musik auf den Seiten der Periodika ‘Die Zeit’ und ‘Österreichische Musik– und Theaterzeitung’,” in Die Wiener Wochenzeitschrift Die Zeit (1894–1904) und die zentraleuropäische Moderne. Studien – Dokumente, eds. Lucie Merhautová and Kurt Ifkovits (Praha: Masarykův ústav a Archiv AV ČR, 2013), 152–80. 104 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music study by the musicologist Sandra McColl.7 The Österreichisches Musiklexikon does not have a separate entry for Lvovský, but refers to his articles and mentions him in other entries, for example in the entry Musikzeitschriften (music journals). The entry in the almanac Das geistige Wien (1893) does not provide any essential information.8 Sources So far, the documents from the Prague I Police Directorate (1891–1895) in the National Theatre Archive collection have been processed, as well as “conscriptions” (residence permit applications) with a link to Prague.9 The Wienbibliothek collections contain compositions, librettos and correspondence (among others with Wilhelm Kienzl). This is also the case with the Austrian National Library. The archives of the Czech school society Komenský in Vienna should contain (according to Heyer) sheet music and correspondence (again, among others, with W. Kienzl). The Zdeněk Nejedlý collection (Archives of the Czech Academy of Sciences) includes two letters written by Lvovský,10 and the František Pivoda collection (National Museum – Bedřich Smetana Museum) includes a letter from Karel Knittl to the composer and teacher František Pivoda (the content refers to Lvovský) and a draft of a letter by Pivoda, who, like Lvovský, lived in Vienna – but already in 1844–1860.11 General information Emil Břetislav/Brzetislav Lvovský was born in Prague on 10 September 1857. However, he is entered as Emil Pick in the civil registry. He probably chose 7 Sandra McColl, “New music and the press: Vienna 1896–7, Bruckner, Dvořák, the Laodiceans and Also sprach Zarathustra,” Context 5 (Winter 1993): 28–41. 8 Ludwig Eisenberg, Das geistige Wien. Mittheilungen Ober die in Wien lebenden Architekten, Bildhauer, Bühnenkünstler, Graphiker, Journalisten, Maler, Musiker und Schriftsteller, vol. 1 (Wien: C. Daberkow’s Verlag, 1893), 333. 9 National Archives of the Czech Republic, National Theatre Archive collection, call number D 218/253, letter, Lvovský to an unknown person, May 16, 1895; National Archives of the Czech Republic, Prague I Police Directorate collection, 1891–1895, call number P 177/165, box 3904; National Archives of the Czech Republic, Police Directorate I collection, conscriptions 1850–1914, box 461, pictures 781 and 782. 10 Masaryk Institute and Archives of the Czech Academy of Sciences, estate of Zdeněk Nejedlý, personal correspondence, Zdeněk Nejedlý Library, box no. 35 (two letters addressed to Zdeněk Nejedlý). 11 National Museum – Bedřich Smetana Museum, estate of František Pivoda, call number 2 27/52, inventory number 8404/52. 105 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today the Slavic patriotic name Břetislav himself. It is derived from the Old Czech verb břěčeti, i. e. to sound, to make noise. He died on 12 July 1910 in Vienna. If we add Lviv to Prague and Vienna, we have three cities where Lvovský spent his life. Appearance – We do not have his appearance (meaning a lithograph, print, painting or photography) yet. The verbal description in his passport says that he was “tal , with an oval face, dark brown hair, brown eyes, pro-portional mouth and nose. ” However, Žižka described him differently: “A noticeable head and the whole appearance. A red face, a little reddish long hair, a somewhat small moustache, sort of shy in his movements, with an almost ironic smile on his lips. ”12 Occupation, education – The records kept by the Prague Police Directorate show that he was initially listed as an accountant ( Buchhalter, Geschäftsleiter, Geschäftsreisende, Handelsagent), and later as composer (Tonkünstler, Komponist). Josef Srb-Debrnov already mentioned musical education in the entry “Lvovský” in his manuscript dictionary, drawing on documents sent to the Lvovský family in 1895: “He [Lvovský] studied the bass with Professor Simandl at the Vienna Conservatory. ”13 The quote suggests that Lvovský was a student at the Conservatory, but according to the director of the Archiv Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde (where the Conservatory collection from 1817–1909 is kept), Lvovský’s name is not in the lists of students.14 This means that he studied with Simandl privately, and this is what statements such as “he studied with Simandl in Vienna” or “student of Simandl” refer to;15 his studies are also confirmed by the dedication in Lvov ský’s composition Drei Stücke im alten Style nach den Violinsonaten von Arcangelo Corel i (published in 1904). There is no information about Lvov ský’s playing level as a double bassist, as he only appears in concert programmes as an accompanying pianist. Lvovský must have been an excellent player – he also composed for this instrument and dedicated some of his compositions to his virtuoso teacher Simandl, who played them publicly (and taught them, especially to advanced students). The question then arises where Lvovský had studied (piano, double bass) before Simandl be-12 Žižka, Mistři a mistříčkové, 87. 13 Josef Srb-Debrnov, Slovník hudebních umělců slovanských. Autograph, National Museum – Czech Museum of Music, call number IV E 41, Part III, 299 (according to Lvovský’s documents of 15 February 1895). 14 Johannes Prominczel, email message to Viktor Velek, September 4, 2023. 15 Heyer, “Česká hudební viennensia,” 349; Helfert, “Lvovský, Břetislav,” 70; Štědroň, “Lvovský, Břetislav,” 851; Eisenberg, Das geistige Wien, 333. 106 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music came his teacher. Without that education he would not have been able to get a position as a teacher at the Lviv Conservatory. Sandra McColl suggests (perhaps music oriented) studying in Prague: Lvovský, who was born and educated in Prague, is probably the most consistently modern in his musical taste, independent of the ideological underpinning of German-nationalist inspired Wagnerism.16 The phrase “Prof. Lvovský” appears for the first time probably in October 1892 in the Czech music periodical Dalibor. The correctness of the academic title can be doubted: Christo Vasilev, the author of the report on the concert in Bulgaria, apparently only believed that Lvovský was a professor.17 However, it caught on, probably reflecting Lvovský’s private teaching activities and perhaps also those at the Lviv Conservatory, where he worked as “a professor of double bass.” Žižka leaves the activities undated;18 B. Štědroň mentions the period 1884–1890;19 Josef Srb-Debrnov20 and the almanac Das geistige Wien (1893)21 state a shorter period (1888–1890). Religion, race – L. K. Žižka suggests in his memoirs that Pick was a Jew: “His real name being Pick, he could not deny his race with his face, but he was a Czech by heart and conviction, and a musician to the core. ”22 Lvovský was also mentioned in an article that mapped the Jewish-owned press.23 His marriage documentation (1879, he was 22) says “without religion; ” we know from another document, dated 30 July 1890, that he joined the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession. Nationality, linguistic affiliation – Lvovský is often described as a Prague German, but like Smetana he merged with Czech cultural life. L. K. Žižka wrote the following: “He was not used to Czech, so he spoke slowly and quietly, as if he was not to be heard, repeating some disobedient words.”24 16 McColl, “New music and the press,” 32. 17 Christo Vasilev, “Z Ruščuku,” Dalibor 15, no. 42–43 (14 October 1893): 340. 18 Žižka, Mistři a mistříčkové, 87. 19 Štědroň, “Lvovský, Břetislav,” 851. 20 Srb-Debrnov, Slovník hudebních umělců slovanských. 21 Eisenberg, Das geistige Wien, 333. 22 Žižka, Mistři a mistříčkové, 87. 23 Anon., “Weitere Beispiele aus der jüdischen Pressherschaft,” Der Volksfreund 1, no. 15 (20 February 1913): 4. It contains the information that the Neue musikalische Presse is edited by Lvovský (Lemberger). Anon., “Die ungeheure Macht der Judenpresse,” Österreichische Volkszeitung 41, no. 7 (14 February 1913): 11. The same information. 24 Žižka, Mistři a mistříčkové, 87. 107 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today An analysis of two letters written in Czech to Zdeněk Nejedlý (1907) suggests that Lvovský’s written Czech was very good, with few mistakes. A certain problem with the Czech language (similar to that of B. Smetana) is suggested by the reviewer of Op. 8 ( Kouzlo lásky, 1894), stating several errors in declamation.25 Family and marriage (22 November 1879, civil marriage) – Lvovský’s marriage documentation contains his parents’ names (Sara, Leopold). His wife was Walburga “Wally” née Prochazka (1862 – after 1914). At the time of their marriage she was 17 and he was 22. The news of the forthcoming marriage was reported by the Prager Tagblatt: Civil Marriage Announcement. On the black board of the Prague Town Hall it is announced as follows: Mr Emil Pick, a merchant at Prague No. 108–III, born 1857 in Prague, without religion (son of Mr Leopold and Sára Pick née Rie), and Miss Walburga Prochaska, born 25 February 1862 in Prague, without religion, residing at No. 226–III (daughter of Mr and Mrs Leopold and Josefa née Bienert) intend to marry. Any objections must be submitted to the municipal authority within three weeks.26 The names of three children are known. We know about the eldest two that their father tried to involve in the minority’s life – a report from 1894 shows that the children donated books to the Czech school society Komenský. Zdenko (1882 – after 1942) – he studied at K. K. Elisabeth Gymnasium in Vienna27 and was a member of the Sokol organisation in 1901– 1903; in 1916 Privatbeamte (private official) in Vienna. Then in the army, in March 1918 promoted to Oberleutnant in der Reserve (Reserve First Lieutenant). Correspondence in the Austrian National Library. Božena (1884–?) – possibly identical to Beata Lvovsky, correspondence in Wienbibliothek. Cecilie/Cecilia/Cäcilia/Cecile/Cäcilie28 Josefine (surname Lorre/ Lovsky/Lovovsky) (21 February 1897 in Vienna – 12 October 1979 in Los Angeles) – actress. Her guardian during her studies was JUDr. Alfred 25 Prof. Frant. Pich [Fratnišek Pich], “Kritika. Břetislav Lvovský, op. 8. Kouzlo lásky,” Dalibor 14, no. 11 (27 January 1894): 77. 26 Anon., “Civileheaufgebot,” Prager Tagblatt 3, no. 314 (12 November 1879): 4. 27 Franz Strauch, ed., XIV. Jahresbericht über das K. K. Elisabeth-Gymnasium in Wien für das Schuljahr 1898/99 (Wien: s. n., 1899). 28 Cäcilie – this form of the name is in the school records. 108 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music Rie (1862–1932), a well-known Jewish court and trial attorney-at-law. She studied theatre, dance and languages at the Austrian Royal Academy of Arts and Music (school years 1913/1914–1915/1916). She later moved to Berlin (acting in the Dream Theatre and Dream Play by Karl Kraus), contacts with the actor Peter Lorre (1904–1964, Jew, originally Lász-ló Löwenstein, from 1913 in Vienna) – Lorre later became her husband (1934–1945). They travelled to Paris, London and the United States. Significance: Discoverer of the Czech violin virtuosos František Drdla (Lvovský was probably the author of the first biography, 1897)29 and Jan Kubelík – According to Jan Řežábek, it was Lvovský who drew Vienna’s attention to the talent of the future violin virtuoso Jan Kubelík. At the end of November 1898, he performed in Vienna at the Academy (a cyclists’ meeting): “He [Lvovský] listened to an unknown violinist and was absolutely amazed. [...] Lvovský was not silent, and Vienna learned about the violin phenomenon. ”30 Kubelík accepted an invitation to a number of other concerts in Vienna, including a concert organised by the editors of Lvovský’s journal Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung and held on 26 January 1899.31 Significance: Promoter of Zdeněk Fibich’s compositions – “In his editorial field, Břetislav Lvovský ensured that Fibich’s work had proper position in the French-language history of Czech music [...] . ”32 Significance: Promoter of Czech music – “[Lvovský] was in very intensive contact with the Czech music world, rendering significant service to Czech music through his journalistic activities. ”33 The second quotation mentions Lviv, but the content can also be applied to his activities in Vienna: 29 B. Lvovský, “Franz Drdla,” ÖMTZ 9, no. 21 (1 July 1897): 1. 30 Jan Řežábek, “Jan Kubelík,” Přemožitelé času 2, no. 6 (1988): 106. For the same information see: Stanislav Jandík, Čaroděj houslí. Vyprávění o Janu Kubelíkovi, který proslavil české jméno po celém světě (Praha: Za svobodu, 1949), 104. 31 Florestan, “Das erste Concert,” ÖMTZ 9, no. 11 (1 February 1899): 5; B. Lvovský, “Johann Kubelik, Violin-Virtuose,” ÖMTZ 11, no. 7 (1 December 1898): 1, 2; B. Lvovský, “Paganini-Abend Jan Kubelík,” ÖMTZ 15, no. 12 (end of March 1904): 5. 32 Artuš Rektorys, ed., Zdeněk Fibich. Sborník dokumentů a studií o jeho životě a díle. 2. díl (Praha: Orbis 1951–1952), 477. 33 Ibid., 530. Czech translation of a German letter from 27 July 1896 in which the ÖMTZ editor Arthur Barde informs Z. Fibich of the tasks assigned by his boss, Lvovský, i. e. that Fibich should send his compositions to Albert Soubies in Paris (he was preparing a book on the history of Czech music) and that he should send his orchestral voices to the Vienna Philharmonic, which already had the score of the F major symphony. J. [Josef] Boleška, “Feuilleton. Francouz o české hudbě,” Národní listy 38, 109 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today From the wider ‘Austrian homeland’ of the time, Břetislav Lvovský (1857–1910) from Lviv, a kind of Czech consul, especially when it came to music, would come to Prague every holiday. [. .] He was already well over thirty. This man was an enthusiastic admirer of Czech music, a great promoter of it in Lviv, in their local Česká beseda, which organised concerts.34 Prague (1857–1881) Lvovský spent his childhood and youth in Prague as Emil Pick. Official documents contain several addresses of his residence.35 His wedding in 1879 has been mentioned. It is strange that we have almost no other information about this period. It is not clear whether his son Zdenko (1882) and daughter Božena (1884) were born there or in Lviv. The research concerning the period when he used the name and surname Emil Pick is complicated by the existence of at least two other persons of the same name and surname: an important industrialist from Čáslav and a Prague Jewish fashion merchant. Speaking of coincidence of names, the translator of a comedy by Eu-gène Scribe Les doigts de fée ( Čarovné ruce) was “B. Lvovský”. The play was performed at the Provisional Theatre on 16 June 1863.36 Lviv (1881–1890) We know from official documents that Lvovský was still staying in Lviv as Emil Pick in the summer of 1881.37 He is mentioned as a merchant, without further specification. Official documents do not mention the pseudonym Lvovský until 1890, but he had already signed his name in the reports sent from 1883 from Lviv to the Prague music journal Dalibor. In the Polish-language press we can come across the Polish form of his name Břetislav, i. e. Brzatysław. When he was accepted as a member of the Music Department of the Umělecká beseda society in early 1889, newspaper reports no. 351 (21 December 1898): 1. Passage about the book Albert Soubies, Histoire de la musique en Boheme (Paris: s. n., 1898). 34 Žižka, Mistři a mistříčkové, 87. 35 Praha-Nové město, no. 656/1 / Praha-Nové město, Tischlergasse 1518, street number 27 (1876) / Praha-Smíchov 386 (1878). 36 Alfred Javorin, Pražské arény: Lidová divadla pražská v minulém století (Praha: Orbis, 1958), 74; Jan Neruda, České divadlo III (Praha: SNKLHU, 1954), 381. It should be noted that in other literature it is possible to come across the form “J. Lvovský.” 37 National Archives of the Czech Republic, Prague I Police Directorate collection, 1891–1895, call number P 177/165, box 3904 (No. 19886, Lemberg, 10 August 1881). 110 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music mention him as B. Lvovský.38 It is quite certain that he did not adopt the pseudonym Emil Břetislav Lvovský (or Břetislav Lvovský) until after he left Prague for Lviv. There was a significant Czech minority in Lviv, one of the most important societies being Česká beseda (founded in 1867). The almanac of this society says, among other things, that “the language of communication was the Pan-Slavic tongue – German. ”39 The sources about this society do not mention Lvovský as a member or guest.40 In his memoirs, L. K. Žižka states that Lvovský was a promoter of Czech music in Česká beseda – this does not necessarily mean his membership, but perhaps only external cooperation. As already mentioned, his tenure as double bass teacher at the Lviv Conservatory is known from literature and variously dated. Lvovský also maintained contact with his homeland, for example in 1889 in the form of a contribution to the Prague monument to Jan Hus.41 It can be assumed that Lvovský may have played the role of manager. That is, someone who arranged concerts of Czech musicians in Lviv. He also visited Prague – his visits were reported on by the press: – Easter 1886 Prague.42 – March 1887 Prague – The third performance of Dvořák’s oratorio Saint Ludmila (probably meant at the National Theatre on 6 March 1887). – February 1888 Prague – With his wife he attended a concert by P. I. Tchaikovsky.43 – June 1890 Prague: A visit to the National Theatre was recorded by the magazine Dalibor: “[Lvovský] visited Prague on the 11th of this month, and having visited Smetana’s ‘The Devil’s Wal ’, he spoke most highly of it, placing it above everything Smetana had com-38 Anon., “Hudební odbor,” Národní politika 7, no. 23 (23 January 1889): 3. 39 Ludvík Feigl, Sto let českého života ve Lvově. Díl druhý. Od roku 1867–1895. Založení ‘České besedy’ ve Lvově a život v ní (Lvov: Česká beseda, 1925), 230, 273. 40 Evžen Topinka, Archiv spolku Česká beseda ve Lvově (1867–1936). K 140. výročí zalo- žení spolku Česká beseda ve Lvově (Lvov: Centrum Evropy, 2007). 41 Anon., “Na Husův pomník (XIII. výkaz),” Národní listy 29, no. 344 (13 December 1889): 6. 42 Anon., “Drobné zprávy. Osobní,” Dalibor 8, no. 17 (28 May 1886): 168. 43 Anon., “Osobní,” Dalibor 10, no. 9 (25 February 1888): 70; Vladimír Štěpánek, Pražské návštěvy P. I. Čajkovského [P. I. Tschaikowski and his visits in Prague] (Praha: Orbis, 1952), 38. 111 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today posed. ”44 This was probably the performance of 8 June or 21 May 1890. Briefly about his musical activities: The extent of his conducting activities is not known; we know from the press about two events: on 20 January 1886 he conducted Fibich’s Missa Brevis in F Major (Lviv Cathedral)45 and in 1890 he completely rehearsed Fibich’s A Night at Karlštejn with the band of the 30th Regiment: Fibich’s ‘A Night at Karlštejn’ has been studied hard (for a whole month) by the band (about 55 men) of the 30th Regiment in Lviv, and the last six rehearsals will be conducted by the composer, Mr Bř. Lvovský, our correspondent. This composition will be performed at a large popular concert conducted by Capt. [Carl/Karl] Roll.46 Lvovský reported on the preparation for the performance of the work as early as February 1887, but eventually it was not performed.47 – In 1883– 1890 he sent reports to the music periodical Dalibor (published in Prague) from Lviv. Lvovský himself wrote in 1891 that he had been writing for the periodical for 10 years, i. e. from 1881!48 His reports were appreciated by the editors: there is the following editor’s note at the end of one report: “Further kind messages from you are always welcome. ”49 Table 1: Overview of Lvovský’s texts sent from Lviv (explicit and assumed authorship, by year) Dalibor, volume, date, issue number, pages, title of text V, 7 January 1883, no. 1, p. 10, Řídkou slavnosť uměleckou… (assumed authorship) V, 21 March 1883, no. 11, pp. 111, 112, Ze Lvova, v únoru 1883 VI, 1884 (short reports from Lviv without signature) (assumed authorship) VII, 14 July 1885, no. 26, pp. 256, 257, Dopisy z ciziny. Ve Lvově, v únoru 1885. Pro nával jiné látky nutně opozděno. (pokračování příště) 44 Anon., “Osobní,” Dalibor 12, no. 28 (14 June 1890): 220. 45 Vladimír Hudec, Zdeněk Fibich. Tematický katalog – thematisches Verzeichnis – thematic catalogue (Praha: Editio Bärenreiter Prague, 2001), 327; Anon., “Drobné zprávy. Mistra Fibicha,” Dalibor 8, no. 1 (7 January 1886): 8. 46 Anon., “Literatura,” Dalibor 12, no. 1–2 (4 January 1890): 9. 47 Anon., “Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova,” Dalibor 11, no. 7 (12 February 1887): 55. Further on the topic: Anon., “Různé zprávy. Fibichova ‘Noc na Karlštejně’ orchestrálně ve Lvově,” Dalibor 12, no. 15 (22 March 1890): 118; Anon., “Ze Lvova, v dubnu r. 1890,” Dalibor 12, no. 22 (3 May 1890): 174–5. 48 Anon., “Dopis z Vídně, prosinec 1891,” Dalibor 12, no. 47–48 (31 December 1891): 369–70. 49 Anon., “Listy ze Lvova,” Dalibor 11, no. 18–19 (20 April 1889): 140–1. 112 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music Dalibor, volume, date, issue number, pages, title of text VII, 21 July 1885, no. 27, pp. 266, 267, Dopisy z ciziny. Ve Lvově, v únoru 1885 (dokončení) VII, 7 December 1885, no. 45, pp. 442–444, Dopisy z ciziny. Ve Lvově, dne 28. listopadu 1885 VIII, 7 January 1886, no. 1, p. 8, Drobné zprávy. Mistra Fibicha (about Lvovský) VIII, 7 March 1886, no. 9, pp. 85, 86, Dopisy z ciziny. Ve Lvově, dne 28. února 1886 VIII, 21 April 1886, no. 15, p. 150, (Zasláno) – a complaint against the report from issue No. 9 and Lvovský’s reply VIII, 28 May 1886, no. 17, p. 168, Drobné zprávy. Osobní (about Lvovský) VIII, 28 May 1886, no. 20, pp. 199, 200, Dopisy z ciziny, dne 12. května 1886 (bude pokračovat) VIII, 7 June 1886, no. 21, pp. 208, 209, Dopisy z ciziny, dne 12. května 1886 (dokonč.) VIII, 7 September 1886, no. 33, pp. 325, 326, Jadwiga. Zpěvohra o čtyřech dějstvích od Jindřicha Jareckiho (úvod ) VIII, 14 September 1886, no. 34, pp. 338–340, Jadwiga. Zpěvohra o čtyřech dějstvích od Jindřicha Jareckiho (dokončení) VIII, 14 November 1886, no. 42, p. 419, Česká hudba ve Lvově (assumed authorship) VIII, 21 December 1886, no. 47–48, p. 468, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova IX, 1 January 1887, no. 1, pp. 3, 4, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova IX, 15 January 1887, no. 3, pp. 20–22, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova IX, 12 February 1887, no. 7, p. 55, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova IX, 12 March 1887, no. 11, p. 86, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova IX, 12 March 1887, no. 11, p. 87, Drobné zprávy. Deputace olomúckého Žerotína (about Lvovský) (assumed authorship) IX, 16 April 1887, no. 16, pp. 125, 126, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova IX, 25 June 1887, no. 26, p. 207, Různé zprávy. Ve Lvově… IX, 3 December 1887, no. 45, p. 357, Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova X, 11 February 1888, no. 6–7, pp. 53, 54, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova. Koncem ledna 1888 X, 25 February 1888, no. 9, p. 70, Osobní (among other things, about Lvovský) X, 7 April 1888, no. 17, p. 135, Různé zprávy. Fibichův klavírní kvartet (op. 11) ve Lvově (assumed authorship) X, 14 April 1888, no. 18, pp. 141, 142, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova. V březnu 1888 (začátek) X, 21 April 1888, no. 19, p. 150, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova. V březnu 1888 (dokončení) X, 28 April 1888, no. 20, p. 158, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova. V březnu 1888 (dokončení) X, 5 May 1888, no. 21, p. 165, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova. V březnu 1888 (dokončení) X, 23 June 1888, no. 28, p. 223, Různé zprávy (assumed authorship) X, 1 December 1888, no. 44, p. 350, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova, v listopadu 1888 XI, 20 April 1889, no. 18–19, pp. 140, 141, Listy ze Lvova XI, 13 July 1889, no. 30–31, pp. 233, 234, Hudební dopis ze Lvova. V květnu, 1889 XII, 4. 1. 1890, no. 1–2, p. 9, Literatura (assumed authorship) XII, 4. 1. 1890, no. 1–2, pp. 12, 13, Dopisy původní. Ze Lvova, v prosinci 1889 XII, 22 March 1890, no. 15, p. 118, Různé zprávy. Fibichova “Noc na Karlštejně” orchestrálně ve Lvově (assumed authorship) XII, 3 May 1890, no. 22, pp. 174, 175, Ze Lvova, v dubnu r. 1890 XII, 14 June 1890, no. 28, p. 220, Osobní (among other things, about Lvovský) (assumed authorship) XII, 18 October 1890, no. 38, pp. 298–301, Feuilleton. Čeští umělci v cizině. František Simandl 113 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today How can we briefly summarise the character and content of his texts? He systematically dealt with the activities of institutions, i.e. Towarzyst-wo muzyczne (music society), conservatories, theatres, singing and music societies in general, e.g. Cecilia (a society for the elevation of church music) and Lutnia (singers’ society). From the beginning, he subjected them (as well as the music writers of the Lviv press) to severe criticism: he did not hesitate to call a conservatory “an ordinary piano school, ” he sharp-ly criticised the bandleaders and directors, e.g. Karl/Karol Ritter von Mi-kuli (1821–1897) was criticised for his conservative dramaturgy (few new works, few operas and too many operettas, few operas by R. Wagner, an-tipathy towards compositions by Russian and Czech composers, frequent omission of movements of works conceived as cycles). Lvovský enthusiastically welcomed changes in the positions of directors, bandleaders, concert masters, etc., but he was usually disappointed. For example, in his view, Jan Gall was a Pole, but a champion of German culture at the expense of Slavic culture. He naturally pinned most of his hopes on the Czechs, whom he expected to be oriented towards the Slavic repertoire. He closely followed Czech musicians working permanently or as guests in Lviv, and he commented in detail on the performances of works by Czech composers (e.g. A. Dvořák, V. Hřímalý, E. Chvála, Z. Fibich, Smetana, Novotný, A. Förchtgott-Tovačovský, K. Bendl), praising their level above Polish authors (Wł. Żeleński, H. Jarecki, Z. Noskowski). He promoted Czech music in Lviv through his journalistic activities, and in Prague he helped to establish the Polish repertoire, e.g. his intercession at Prague’s National Theatre for the opera Jadwiga by H. Jarecki (1888). It must be said that the sharp and matter-of-fact tone of his reviews probably had a positive effect: the Slavic repertoire on the programmes was increasing! He defended himself against the complaints sent to the editors of Dalibor from Lviv with replies in the journal. He was respected in the editorial staff and was encouraged to send further reports. Most of them were published with his name, but some were edited by the editors into a neutral form – these were the ones in which he described his activities. Over time, his style of writing changed: from 1886 onwards, he wrote elaborate analytical sections, and there was a marked striving for a higher literary level and a philosophical tone. The journal contains advertisements of his compositions published by the Prague publisher F. A. Urbánek. In mid-October 1890 Lvovský published in Dalibor a biographical note (feuilleton) about Franz Simandl50 – with this text he 50 Anon., “Feuilleton. Čeští umělci v cizině. František Simandl,” Dalibor 12, no. 38 (18 October 1890): 298–301. 114 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music closed the Lviv chapter of his collaboration with the periodical. What remains open for further research in the Lviv period? Verification of the report that he was a double bass teacher at the Conservatory. Vienna (1890–) Lvovský, Vienna and activities: this is primarily a musical and journalistic activity, the role of performer (piano, double bass), composing, the role of teacher and perhaps also an organisational role: one of the obituaries states that he also “[...] contributed to the International Theatre and Music Exhibition held in Vienna in 1892 [...].”51 This statement is perhaps related to the fact that Lvovský reported extensively and frequently on the exhibition in his reports for Dalibor. Lvovský is not mentioned in connection with the exhibition by Theophil Antonicek either.52 In Vienna, Lvovský was actively involved in the life of the Viennese-Czech (Slavic) enclave, in cooperation with the “Utraquists” and in the life of the German scene. Franz Simandl was probably also the one who introduced Lvovský to both musical scenes. Franz Simandl (1840–1912) This Viennese Czech was a renowned virtuoso, a teacher at the Conservatory (1870–1910), from 1869 he was for many years the 1st double bass player of the orchestra of the Imperial and Royal Court Opera (also chairman of the orchestra/ Orchestervorstand), he was also in the Wiener Philharmoniker (1869–1904), in the Wiener Hofmusikkapelle, and he was very active in the Slovanská beseda society.53 Lvovský could have studied in Vienna with Simandl hypothetically already during his time in Lviv (Lvovský sent messages to Dalibor quite sporadically in 1888–1890), and theoretically even earlier. He must have known Simandl well before 1890 (Lvovský’s feuilleton about Simandl in Dalibor, see footnote no. 50). Thanks to Jan Kment we have the following quotation: 51 Anon., “Různé zprávy,” Dalibor 32, no. 41 (3 September 1910): 311. 52 Theophil Antonicek, Die internationale Ausstellung für Musik- und Theaterwesen Wien 1892 (Wien: Th. Antonicek, 2013). 53 Christian Fastl, “Simandl Franz,” in Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1850– 1950, vol. 12 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2005), 274; Christian Fastl, “Simandl Franz,” in Österreichisches Musiklexikon, vol. 5 (Schwechat – Zyklus), ed. Rudolf Flotzinger (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2006), 2219. 115 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today An interesting comparison was arrived at by B. Lvovský after Bottesini’s death. Some concert audiences preferred Bottesini’s playing because he used a salon double bass, equipped with weak strings. Simandl, however, used an instrument of normal construction and strings (from 1893 he played a Maggini instrument) and yet, in the view of those who had the opportunity to hear both virtuosos in the same works, Simandl surpassed Bottesini in power and beauty of tone and in wonderful technique.54 German scene in Vienna Lvovský debuted in Vienna as a composer, a double bass player and a piano accompanist at the end of 1890. He and Simandl performed at the same concerts, and it is possible that it was Simandl who helped Lvovský to establish himself. The singer Emma Vogl performed his songs and he accompanied her on the piano: – 25 October 1890, concert (Hotel Union): Gesellschafts-Abend der Kirchenmusik-Vereines a. d. Votivkirche (Hotel Union),55 – 8 November 1890, concert (Zum wilden Mann, Währing),56 – 28 November 1890, G. Kühle’s concert (Saal Ehrbar),57 Emma Vogl, Anna Nováková, Anna Vogl, Emma Nováková, Emma/ Emmi Vogl, Anette Novák – all these are different forms of the name of a singer who, together with F. Simandl and violinist R. Harzer, belonged to the circle of Lvovský’s closest friends and fellow players. She was de facto his “favourite singer”. We know her concert dates and repertoire, but not her detailed biography. In 1893 she was a member of the Imperial and Royal Court Opera, performing both on the German and Slavic music scene in Vienna. According to the entry in Josef Srb-Debrnov’s dictionary, she was born in Prague.58 So far there is no indication that Lvovský was trying to break into the German music scene in Vienna as a performer or composer. He was part of it, but in the role of journalist. He also had time to inform German readers about Czech music: both in a general sense and about events in Bohe-54 Jan Kment, Nejhlubší z rodu smyčců. Dějiny a literatura kontrabasu (Praha: Su-praphon, 1988), 88–9. 55 G. K. [Gustav Kühle], “Vereinskonzerte,” ÖMTZ 3, no. 3 (1 November 1890): 5. 56 G. K. [Gustav Kühle], “Vereinskonzerte,” ÖMTZ 3, no. 4 (15 November 1890): 7. 57 Anon., “Saal Ehrbar,” ÖMTZ 4, no. 5 (December 1891): 8. 58 Srb-Debrnov, Slovník hudebních umělců slovanských. 116 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music mia, Moravia, and also in Czech Vienna. He often wrote about Slavic music: again both in a broader and narrower sense, i.e. about the musical life of the Slavs in Vienna. There is not enough space in this study to map his concert performances, but there were dozens of them, and he was always appreciated as an excellent piano accompanist. His journalistic activities will be dealt with below. Czech/Slavic Viennese minority The music scene of the Viennese Czechs and Slavs – Lvovský became part of it soon after his arrival in Vienna. His first role was that of a performer and composer: as a pianist, he had played since the end of the 1890s at events of the elite societies Slovanský zpěvácký spolek (Slavic Singers’ Society, 5 November 1890) and Slovanská beseda (31 December 1890, he became a member in 1899), with his compositions also being performed. His contacts with the Czech singers’ society Lumír date back to 1893 – again it was about playing the piano and performing his compositions, especially the annual spectacular “Czech Concert”. He also accepted offers from other societies (e.g. Sokol, the Association of Czech-Slavic Cyclists’ Societies of Lower Austria in Vienna). Let’s continue with Jan Heyer’s summary: “His [Lvovský’s] participa-tion in the musical life of the minority was considerable. This is evidenced by the frequent performances of his compositions at Czech events. ”59 His compositions were mainly performed at the events of the societies Láska k bližnímu, Slavoj, Lumír60, Slovanská beseda and the Slavic Singers’ Society. He was probably most involved in the Slovanská beseda society – see the memory of the choirmaster and composer Jaromír Herle of his arrival in Vienna in 1898: I knew no one in Vienna except Mr Břetislav Lvovský, then a teacher of music and editor of the ‘Wiener Musik und Theater Zeitung’. I therefore turned to him and he sent me to Slovanská beseda – I went there the same evening [...].61 59 Heyer, “Česká hudební viennensia”, 349. 60 “Dopisy význačných osob,” in 70 let Lumíru ve Vídni (Vídeň: Pěvecký spolek Lumír, 1934), 130 (there is Lvovský’s letter to the Lumír society, dated 14 April 1907); Výroč- ní zpráva zpěváckého spolku Lumír ve Vídni za správní rok 1893. XXVIII (Vídeň: Spolek Lumír, 1894), 21 – there is information that Lvovský gave the society the scores of choruses by various composers. 61 Jaromír Herle, Vzpomínky na Vídeň. Autograph from 1934. Ing. Vítězslav Herle’s archive in Prague. 117 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Lvovský knew the organised Czech and Slavic minority in Vienna well, e. g. Václav Cinert, the leading personality of the compatriot periodical Věstník – Časopis spolků českoslovanských ve Vídni (a magazine of Czech-Slavic societies in Vienna). Lvovský was part of it, but he was not isolated in it. Lvovský can be considered an “Utraquist”, meaning a Czech artist active on both the Czech (Slavic) and German music scene in Vienna; they were generally considered Viennese rather than Czech in Vienna. Basically, all successful artists, academics, etc. involved in minority life outside their main profession, such as the aforementioned F. Simandl, were Utraquists. The aforementioned concert singer Anetta Nováková also falls into this category. The following is a list of the compatriot societies in which Lvovský performed as a performer or in which his compositions were performed (1890– 1910) – the list is certainly not complete, but it will suffice for the sake of illustration: the Slavic Singers’ Society, Slovanská beseda, the Association of Czech-Slavic Cyclists’ Societies of Lower Austria in Vienna, Sokol, Lumír, Slavoj, Láska k bližnímu. These were generally elite or middle-class societies, and the activities were only occasional, mainly carried out in the societies’ rooms, the only exception being the famous Ehrbar Hall in the 4th district. Lvovský maintained contact with the homeland. He was close to the composers Z. Fibich and F. Musil (1852–1908). As editor-in-chief of the Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung, he also had to deal with problems related to some articles, e. g. Karel Knittl,62 a professor at the Prague Conservatory, objected to the fact that in this periodical Josef Srb-Debrnov portrayed him as an enemy of B. Smetana. The correspondence with František Pivoda and Zdeněk Nejedlý, who returned to the case years later, also relates to this case. Musical journalism: Dalibor Lvovský sent his reports from Vienna to the Prague music journal Dalibor, the most important of its kind, in the period from 1890 to 1895. The first such report (entitled A Letter from Vienna) was published at the end of November 1890, but it is likely that the feuilleton about F. Simandl (printed in mid-October) had been written in Vienna. 62 Karel Knittl, “Polemisches,” ÖMTZ 8, supplement to issue no. 1 (1 October 1895): 10; Josef Srb-Debrnov, “Zur Aufklärung,” ÖMTZ 8, supplement to issue no. 1 (1 October 1895): 10. 118 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music His name is found in texts marked either as Dopis z Vídně (A Letter from Vienna) or Původní dopis z Vídně (An Original Letter from Vienna). It seems that he also supplied the editorial staff with material for the entry Vídeň (Vienna) in the sections Činnost našich spolkův a ruch náš hudební (Activities of Our Societies and Our Music Events) and Různé zprávy (Mis-cellaneous Reports). The sections include the programme of the Court Opera, various short reports from musical Vienna, but often also reports on the activities of Czech and Slavic societies in Vienna and the performances of the Czech repertoire in general. From Volume XVIII onwards, there are no longer reports signed by Lvovský in Dalibor, but it cannot be ruled out that Lvovský contributed factual reports from Vienna to the unsigned sections. In his letters he analysed philharmonic concerts, the programme of the Court Opera, the activities of musical societies and concerts of various kinds. It is logical that he informed Dalibor’s readers about performances of Czech compositions in Vienna and Vienna performances of Czech soloists (ensembles) from Bohemia and Moravia (e. g. F. Ondříček, Czech Quartet) and Czech-Vienna musicians (A. Nováková, F. Simandl and others). There are also reports on the activities of Czech and Slavic societies in Vienna (concerts of the Slavic Singers’ Society, Slovanská beseda, Lumír, Tovačovský, Slavoj, Tyrš) – he reproached his compatriots for the low interest in concerts of stars from Bohemia and Moravia in Vienna, criticising their renegadeism. He took a harsh tone quite often (e. g. when defending Brahms, when criticising Berlioz’s overture King Lear, when criticising the work of his colleagues in the German press in Vienna, e. g. Max Graf of the Musikalische Rundschau). Among Czech composers, he paid particular attention to the trio of Smetana, Dvořák and Fibich. He returned several times to the performance of The Bartered Bride at the Theater an der Wien, monitored the promotion of Smetana’s operas in Vienna, and was episodically involved in the “absolute/programme music” dispute. He had no serious reservations about Antonín Dvořák’s works, with the exception of the String Quartet in E Flat Major and the opera Dimitrij. In several parts he described in detail (especially the Czech) events at the International Music and Theatre Exhibition. It is obvious that Lvovský devoted a considerable amount of attention to the activities of the performers with whom he performed and who played his compositions, etc. For example, to the aforementioned F. Simandl, T. Krečman [Kretschmann] and the singer Anetta Nováková. 119 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today The end of contributing to Dalibor is certainly related to the fact that in 1895 Lvovský became the owner of the Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung. He was obviously in contact with the Prague editorial staff – in 1897 a half-page advertisement for Lvovský’s Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung was published in Dalibor.63 Table 2: Overview of Lvovský’s texts sent from Vienna to Prague: Volume, date, issue number, pages, title of text XII, 18 October 1890, no. 38, pp. 298–301, Feuilleton. Čeští umělci v cizině. František Simandl XII, 29 November 1890, no. 44–45, pp. 348–350, Dopis z Vídně I., V listopadu 1890 XIII, 3 January 1891, no. 1–2, pp. 7, 8, Dopis z Vídně II., V pros. 1890 XIII, 7 February 1891, no. 8, pp. 57, 58, Dopis z Vídně III, koncem ledna 1891 XIII, 18 April 1891, no. 18–19, pp. 139, 140, Dopis z Vídně IV, duben 1891 XIII, 31 December 1891, no. 47–48, pp. 369, 370, Dopis z Vídně, prosinec 1891 XIV, 2 April 1892, no. 18–19, pp. 137–140, Dopis z Vídně. V březnu 1892 XIV, 21 May 1892, no. 28, pp. 213, 214, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. I. Ve Vídni, dne 16. května 1892 XIV, 28 May 1892, no. 29, p. 221, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. II. XIV, 4 June 1892, no. 30, pp. 229, 230, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. III. XIV, 4 June 1892, no. 30, pp. 230, 231, Hudební dopis z Vídně. V květnu 1892 XIV, 25 June 1892, no. 31, pp. 242, 243, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. IV. XIV, 2 July 1892, no. 32, pp. 249–251, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. V. XIV, 2 July 1892, no. 33–36, pp. 257, 258, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. VI. XIV, 8 September 1892, no. 37–38, pp. 290, 291, Mezinárodní hudební a divadelní výstava ve Vídni. VII. XIV, 29 September 1892, no. 42, p. 333, Dopis původní. Z Vídně, dne 18. října 1892 XV, 3 December 1892, no. 1–2, pp. 8, 9, Původní dopis z Vídně II, dne 26. 11. 1892 XV, 7 January 1893, no. 6–7, pp. 43, 44, Původní dopis z Vídně. III. Prosinec 1892 XV, 14 January 1893, no. 8, p. 60, Původní dopis z Vídně. IV. Ve Vídni, dne 5. ledna 1893. Tvr-dohlavci. Opera o 4 jednáních od P. Mascagniho XV, 28 January 1893, no. 10, pp. 74–76, Původní dopis z Vídně. IV. Dne 20. ledna 1893 XV, 4 February 1893, no. 12, pp. 90, 91, Původní dopis z Vídně. V. Dne 30. ledna 1893 XV, 18 February 1893, no. 13–14, p. 103, Původní dopis z Vídně. V. (dokončení) XV, 22 April 1893, no. 25–26, pp. 193, 194, Původní dopis z Vídně. VI. Dne 13. dubna 1893 XV, 13 May 1893, no. 29–30, pp. 231, 232, Původní dopis z Vídně. VII. Počátkem května r. 1893 XVI, 16 December 1893, no. 5–6, pp. 33, 34, Dopis z Vídně. V prosinci 1893 XVI, 3 March 1894, no. 17–18, pp. 129, 130, Dopis z Vídně. Smetanova “Hubička” ve dvorní opeře ve Vídni XVI, 30 June 1894, no. 32–34, pp. 245–247, Dopis z Vídně XVI, 27 October 1894, no. 43–44, pp. 338, 339, Dopis z Vídně (říjen 1894) XVI, 3 December 1894, no. 47–48, pp. 368–370, Dopis z Vídně II (listopad 1894) XVII, 29 December 1894, no. 1–4, pp. 12–14, Dopis z Vídně. V listopadu 1894 XVII, 2 February 1895, no. 7–8, pp. 51, 52, Dopis z Vídně. V prosinci 1894 63 Anon., “Vídeň,” Dalibor 19, no. 43–44 (25 September 1897): 348. 120 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music Volume, date, issue number, pages, title of text XVII, 23 March 1895, no. 16, pp. 119–120, Dopis z Vídně XVII, 30 March 1895, no. 17–18, pp. 128, 129, Dopis z Vídně. Telegram 27. 3. 1895 v noci. “Tajemst-ví” Komická zpěvohra B. Smetany. Po generální zkoušce ve dvorní opeře 26. 3. 1895 XVII, 13 April 1895, no. 20, pp. 151, 152, Dopis z Vídně. Dne 31. 3. 1895 XVII, 20 April 1895, no. 21, pp. 159, 160, Dopis z Vídně. Dne 9. dubna 1895 We find mentions of Lvovský in the review of the concert in Bulgaria and then in the list of those who congratulated Z. Fibich on his fiftieth birthday.64 Music journalism: Neue musikalische Presse It is not yet clear whether Lvovský was a regular editor or just a collaborator. The statement “[...] the ‘Neue Musikalische Presse’ is edited by Lvovský (Lemberger)” in the anti-Semitic article should be taken with a grain of salt.65 His collaboration ended at the end of 1907 or at the beginning of 1908: a report in Dalibor explicitly states that Lvovský resigned from the editorial position and that he would be replaced by Dr. Berg.66 The year 1908 is also cited as the upper limit of the journal’s existence. No research concerning this periodical has been carried out yet; so far we know of three texts in Volume XVI (1907): no. 17 Ignaz Brül †, no. 21 Hans von Bülows Briefe, no. 24 a review of Op. 9 by the composer Ernst Toch. Music journalism: Deutsche Kunst– und Musik-Zeitung, Die Lyra (Wien), Musikalisches Wochenblatt (Leipzig) Certain indications point to a possible collaboration between Lvovský and these three music periodicals. Music journalism: Österreichische Musik– und Theaterzeitung Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung (ÖMTZ) – This journal was founded in October 1888.67 It is possible that Lvovský contributed to it from 64 Vasilev, “Z Ruščuku,” 340; Anon., “K Abrahámovinám,” Dalibor 15, no. 3–5 (17 December 1892): 22. 65 Anon., “Weitere Beispiele aus der jüdischen Pressherschaft,” 4. Resp. Anon., “Die ungeheure Macht der Judenpresse,” 11. 66 Anon., “Různé zprávy. Břetislav Lvovský,” Dalibor 30, no. 14 (11 January 1908): 114. 67 The first three volumes were subtitled Zeitschrift für Musik und Theater (10/1888–9/1891), and the following three Organ zur Hebung österreichischer Militär-Musik (10/1891–9/1894). 121 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Lviv as Dr. B. L. or C-dur. After Lvovský came to Vienna, the editor of the music section, Gustav Kühle, reviewed Lvovský’s compositions68 and performances,69 and eventually agreed on standard editorial cooperation. According to the journal Dalibor, Lvovský was to take over the editorship from May 1895,70 which is also confirmed by the front page of Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung of May 1895 (VII, no. 13–14): the publisher Gustav Kühle informed the subscribers that “Today [15 May 1895] I have engaged Mr B. Lvovský [...] as editor. ”71 In October 1895 Lvovský became the owner of the journal.72 This is confirmed by his letter written in Czech addressed to the management of the National Theatre in Prague.73 He sent a sample issue, characterised himself as a “Czech musician” and recom-mended himself directly as the recipient of the news that the theatre would like to publish in his periodical. Lvovský ran the journal until Volume XI (1898/1899, from issue no. 9, published on 20 June 1900, Anna Cador is listed as the publisher), after which he was only a contributor. The reason for this was obviously a change of his priorities – Lvovský was mainly occupied with composing and writing librettos. During Lvovský’s tenure, the journal (or rather the content of its issues) was frequently and regularly advertised in many periodicals in what is now Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Germany and Croatia. Lvovský had a number of interesting collaborators. For example, he was sent messages from Prague by Victor Joss (1869–), Emil Dominante and Richard Grünfeld (1871–1932). Smetana was dealt with, among others, by Josef Srb-Debrnov (1836–1904), an outstanding expert on the maestro’s works. Contributions were also sent by the Czech composer Josef Bohuslav Foerster (1893–1903 Hamburg, 1903–1918 Vienna). Messages from Chicago, where tens of thousands of Czechs lived, were sent to Lvovský by the local violinist and publicist Josef Alois Vilím (1861–1938), a graduate of the Prague Conservatory. The Czech/Slavic music scene in Vienna was covered 68 G. K. [Gustav Kühle], “Vereinskonzerte,” (1 November 1890), 5; G. K. [Gustav Küh-le], “Vereinskonzerte,” (15 November 1890), 7. 69 Anon., “Saal Ehrbar,” 8. 70 Anon., “Osobní,” Dalibor 17, no. 21 (20 April 1895): 160; Anon., “Oesterreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung,” Dalibor 17, no. 27 (8 June 1895): 208. 71 “Mit heutigem Tage [15 May 1895] habe ich Herrn B. Lvovský […] als Redacteur enga-girt. ” 72 Anon., “Vídeň,” Dalibor 17, no. 38 (12 October 1895): 299; [front page], ÖMTZ 8, no. 2 (15 October 1895): 1 (as “Herausgeber und Chef-Redacteur”). 73 National Archives of the Czech Republic, National Theatre Archive collection, call number D 218/253, ÖMTZ headed paper, Vienna 16 June 1895. 122 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music either by Lvovský himself or by the hitherto unknown “Eusebius” – it cannot be ruled out that this was Lvovský’s pseudonym. The periodical included various free supplements, for example Illus-trierte Literaturblatt, musical supplements, and subscribers to Volume X received gratis the impressive Almanach der Österreichischen Musik- und Theaterzeitung (Vienna 1897). The interesting design also won an award at the World Exhibition in Brussels (1897) – a bronze medal and a certificate of merit.74 There is no room in this study for a detailed assessment of the “Lvovský period” of this journal.75 He managed to maintain its high reputation, and the level of coverage of Czech music makes it a unique German-language music periodical. The dispute over the importance of Antonín Dvořák, one of the phenomena of Czech music historiography, was also present on the pages of ÖMTZ. Lvovský criticised Dvořák’s work quite harshly, but he was not the only critic in this sense: see Franz Gerstenkorn (1834–1910) in Prague, George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950), John F. Runciman (1866–1912) and Francis Hueffer (1845–1889) in London, and James Gibbons Huneker (1857–1921) in New York. Lvovský’s critical tone towards Dvořák’s compositions gradually intensified. An example of this is the first concert of the new season of the Slavic Singers’ Society (11 December 1897), which included two of Dvořák’s compositions. Te Deum was performed for the first time in Europe, and Lvovský added: “And may it remain the last! Calculating in its crude mass effect and very poor in its melodic invention, this work is a true caricature of church music. ”76 The criticism was mainly related to the melodic aspect and the overall purpose of the piece, but the choir performed it very well. In this, and in the praise of the mastery of dynamics by the choirmaster M. Hubad, there is a noticeable shift from Lvovský’s earlier reviews. “The worst mistake of the evening was the performance of ‘Dumky’, a trio for piano, violin and cel o [...] . ”77 Lvovský reproached this composition both for its very existence and for its performance. Unlike before, Lvovský did 74 Anon., “Laut Mittheilung der […],” ÖMTZ 10, no. 3 (October 1897): 3; Anon., “Ví- deň,” 344. 75 Reittererová and Velek, “Die Rezeption der tschechischen Musik,” 152–80. 76 “Möge es doch auch die letzte bleiben! Dieses, auf grobe Massenwirkung berechnete, in melodischer Erfindung höchst armselige Werk, ist eine wahre Caricatur der Kirchenmusik. ” Anon., “Der slavische Gesangverein,” ÖMTZ 10, no. 8 (15 October 1897): 6: 77 “Der ärgste Missgriff des Abendes war der Triovortrag für Clavier, Violine und Cello der ‚Dumky‘ von Dr. Anton Dvořák. ” Ibid. 123 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today not compare Dvořák with Smetana, but in his reflection he concluded that Dvořák was overrated at the expense of the more progressive Fibich due to the affections of his influential supporters, Eduard Hanslick and Johannes Brahms. Lvovský directed another criticism towards Dvořák to H. Richter, who included Dvořák’s symphonic poems in the Vienna Philharmonic’s season plan, but completely omitted Smetana, Fibich and many others in this regard! – It should be added that until about 1895 Lvovský’s reception of Dvořák’s works was positive, with few reservations. It is possible that Lvovský deliberately sided with those who belittled Dvořák’s importance in the Prague “battle for Dvořák and Smetana.” Concert tours or “out of Vienna” It is up to future detailed research into Lvovský’s activities to reveal the extent to which he performed outside Vienna. He visited Switzerland, England, France, but it is not clear whether he performed publicly there. So far, the following performances are known (there are also a number of reviews of them, which are deliberately not referred to in this study): – May/June 1893: A concert tour to Bulgaria and Romania (Ruse, Sredets, Sofia, Varna, Bucharest) – other performers were Franz Simandl, the singer Anetta Nováková and the violinist R. Hartz-er. They performed together often, including on some other concert tours. – 20 July 1894, Riesenhof: The press reported that musicians from among the spa guests (including Anetta Nováková and B. Lvovský) would give a charity concert.78 – Winter 1894/1895, Bucharest: The press announced a “comeback” to Bucharest in the winter, but it is not clear whether the concert tour took place. One of the reports ends as follows: “The artists will also perform in Vienna and other cities. ”79 – 6 January 1897, Prague (Rudolfinum): 42nd popular concert of the Umělecká beseda society. – 2 February 1897, Brno (large hall of the Beseda House): A concert of the Filharmonická beseda brněnská society. 78 Anon., “Nachrichten aus Oberösterreich und Salzburg. Concert auf dem Rie-senhofe,” (Linzer)Tages-Post 30, no. 162 (18 July 1894): 4. 79 Anon., “Notizen. Herr Professor,” ÖMTZ 7, no. 1–2 (October 1894): 8. 124 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music – 23 October 1898, Prostějov: A concert of the Orlice male choir. – April 1899: An unspecified concert tour.80 – 20 January 1903, Leipzig (Palmengarten): 16. Gesellschaftskonzert des Günther Coblenz-Orchesters. Teaching activities We know from sketchy reports that Lvovský taught music theory, harmony, counterpoint, music analysis and instrumentation privately. The names of three of his students are known: – Michele Radovani (? – after 1907) – Greek composer and publicist – Josip Hladek/Chládek-Bohinjski (1879–1940) – Slovenian choirmaster and teacher – Emilie Hermine Pia Stöger (pseud. Herma Friedberg, 1876–1936) – Austrian pianist and composer Berlin, Dresden The summer stay in Dresden in 1899 was mentioned by Lvovský himself in one of his articles.81 It seems that Lvovský stayed in Berlin more than once. A newspaper report from October 1904 informs of his return to Vienna after several years in Berlin, where he composed and tried to promote the performing of his operettas and operas – he was successful in that regard. “[...] in Lviv (1884/1890), lived briefly in Berlin, and final y in Vienna (from 1890) until his death. ” Another quotation mentions a longer period: “His several years in Germany were very fruitful [...] . ”82 He probably moved to Berlin in the summer of 1900, i. e. after the handover of the management of the ÖMTZ to the aforementioned Anna Cador. Vienna (1904–1910) There is very little biographical information about the Berlin period and the last ten years of Lvovský’s life in general. So far, we can only rely on reports of performances of his works. From the end of 1904 until his death in the 80 Anon., “Mittheilungen und Notizen. Redactionelle Mittheilungen,” ÖMTZ 11, no. 15 (1 April 1899): 10. 81 B. Lvovsky, “Alphonse Maurice und seine Lieder,” Dresdner mehrmonatlicher Ferial-aufenthalt 26, no. 13–14 (25 August 1899): 89–90. 82 Anon., “Hudební skladatel,” Dalibor 26, no. 41 (8 October 1904): 292. 125 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today summer of 1910 he probably lived in Vienna. Journalism no longer formed his main occupation; he devoted himself to composing and writing librettos for operettas and operas. Around the age of 50, he finally began to make a name for himself, both in Germany and in Vienna, but this positive trend was ended by a prolonged heart condition, which was most certainly exacerbated by Lvovský’s industriousness. Obituaries rate him as a good Czech, a talented musician and writer, and a nice but struggling artist. Any earlier criticism was about the little originality of his compositions. Lvovský as a composer and librettist Lvovský as a composer and librettist – that would be a topic for a separate paper. Therefore, in the context of general characteristics, only the most important things can be said. Lvovský’s compositional legacy covers a wide spectrum – from choirs, songs, chamber music, orchestral works to opera and operetta. His double bass compositions must have been of a very high standard in their day, because several of them were included in Simandl’s Die hohe Schule des Contrabasspieles. In total, Lvovský composed approxi-mately 100 works. He began composing in 1890, when he came to Vienna. He published mainly in Leipzig (F. Schubert junior), Berlin (R. Thiel), Bre-men (E. A. Fischer) and in Prague (F. A. Urbánek). He worked closely with Bruno Wieland in Ravensburg. Conclusion Due to a lack of information, some stages of Lvovský’s life have not yet been studied, but the foundation has been laid in this paper so future research can continue with partial probes. These are mainly in the areas of composition, teaching and journalism. In the last area I have so far mapped his activities connected with the periodicals Dalibor and ÖMTZ, so only the Neue musikalische Presse, Deutsche Kunst- und Musik-Zeitung, Die Lyra and M usikalisches Wochenblatt remain to be studied in detail. Then it will be possible to proceed to a thorough analysis of what kind of music publicist Lvovský actually was. From what we know from our research so far, he deserves our attention. 126 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music Bibliography Archival Sources Ing. Vítězslav Herle’s archive in Prague. Jaromír Herle, Vzpomínky na Vídeň. Autograph from 1934. Masaryk Institute and Archives of the Czech Academy of Sciences, estate of Zdeněk Nejedlý, personal correspondence, Zdeněk Nejedlý Library, box no. 35 (two letters addressed to Zdeněk Nejedlý). National Archives of the Czech Republic, National Theatre Archive collection, call number D 218/253. Letter, Lvovský to an unknown person, May 16, 1895. National Archives of the Czech Republic, National Theatre Archive collection, call number D 218/253, ÖMTZ headed paper, Vienna 16 June 1895. National Archives of the Czech Republic, Police Directorate I collection, conscriptions 1850–1914, box 461, pictures 781 and 782. National Archives of the Czech Republic, Prague I Police Directorate collection, 1891–1895, call number P 177/165, box 3904. National Museum – Bedřich Smetana Museum, estate of František Pivoda, call number 2 27/52, inventory number 8404/52. National Museum – Czech Museum of Music, call number IV E 41, Part III, 299 (according to Lvovský’s documents of 15 February 1895), Josef Srb-Debrnov, Slovník hudebních umělců slovanských. Autograph. Literature 70 let Lumíru ve Vídni. Vídeň: Pěvecký spolek Lumír, 1934. Antonicek, Theophil. Die internationale Ausstel ung für Musik- und Theaterwesen Wien 1892. Wien: Th. Antonicek, 2013. Eisenberg, Ludwig. Das geistige Wien. Mittheilungen Ober die in Wien lebenden Architekten, Bildhauer, Bühnenkünstler, Graphiker, Journalisten, Maler, Musiker und Schriftstel er. Vol. 1. Wien: C. Daberkow’s Verlag, 1893. Fastl, Christian. “Simandl Franz.” In Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1850–1950. Vol. 12, 274. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2005. Fastl, Christian. “Simandl Franz.” In Österreichisches Musiklexikon, vol. 5 (Schwechat – Zyklus), edited by Rudolf Flotzinger, 2219. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2006. Feigl, Ludvík. Sto let českého života ve Lvově. Díl druhý. Od roku 1867–1895. Založení ‘České besedy’ ve Lvově a život v ní. Lvov: Česká beseda, 1925. Helfert, Vladimír. “Lvovský, Břetislav.” In Pazdírkův hudební slovník naučný. II. Část osobní – Svazek druhý L–M, edited by Oldřich Pazdírek, Gracian Čer-nušák and Vladimír Helfert, 70. Brno: Oldřich Pazdírek 1940. 127 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Hudec, Vladimír. Zdeněk Fibich. Tematický katalog – thematisches Verzeichnis – thematic catalogue. Praha: Editio Bärenreiter Prague, 2001. Jandík, Stanislav. Čaroděj houslí. Vyprávění o Janu Kubelíkovi, který proslavil české jméno po celém světě. Praha: Za svobodu, 1949. Javorin, Alfred. Pražské arény: Lidová divadla pražská v minulém století. Praha: Orbis, 1958. Kment, Jan. Nejhlubší z rodu smyčců. Dějiny a literatura kontrabasu. Praha: Su-praphon, 1988. Neruda, Jan. České divadlo III. Praha: SNKLHU, 1954. Reittererová, Vlasta, and Viktor Velek. “Die Rezeption der tschechischen Musik auf den Seiten der Periodika ‘Die Zeit’ und ‘Österreichische Musik– und Theaterzeitung’.” In Die Wiener Wochenzeitschrift Die Zeit (1894–1904) und die zentraleuropäische Moderne. Studien – Dokumente, edited by Lucie Merhautová and Kurt Ifkovits, 152–80. Praha: Masarykův ústav a Archiv AV ČR, 2013 Rektorys, Artuš, ed. Zdeněk Fibich. Sborník dokumentů a studií o jeho životě a díle. 2. díl. Praha: Orbis 1951–1952. Soubies, Albert. Histoire de la musique en Boheme. Paris: s. n., 1898. Strauch, Franz, ed. XIV. Jahresbericht über das K. K. Elisabeth-Gymnasium in Wien für das Schuljahr 1898/99. Wien: s. n., 1899. Štědroň, Bohumír. “Lvovský, Břetislav.” In Československý hudební slovník osob a institucí. První díl, A–L, edited by Gracian Černušák, Bohumír Štědroň and Zdenko Nováček, 851. Praha: Státní hudební nakladatelství 1963. Štěpánek, Vladimír. Pražské návštěvy P. I. Čajkovského [P. I. Tschaikowski and his visits in Prague]. Praha: Orbis, 1952. Topinka, Evžen. Archiv spolku Česká beseda ve Lvově (1867–1936). K 140. výročí založení spolku Česká beseda ve Lvově. Lvov: Centrum Evropy, 2007. Výroční zpráva zpěváckého spolku Lumír ve Vídni za správní rok 1893. XXVIII. Vídeň: Spolek Lumír, 1894. Žižka, Leoš Karel. Mistři a mistříčkové. Praha: L. K. Žižka, 1947. Periodicals Anon. “Civileheaufgebot.” Prager Tagblatt 3, no. 314 (12 November 1879): 4. Anon. “Der slavische Gesangverein.” ÖMTZ 10, no. 8 (15 October 1897): 6. Anon. “Die ungeheure Macht der Judenpresse.” Österreichische Volkszeitung 41, no. 7 (14 February 1913): 11. Anon. “Dopis z Vídně, prosinec 1891.” Dalibor 12, no. 47–48 (31 December 1891): 369–70. 128 e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese critic of antonín dvořák’s music Anon. “Dopisy z ciziny. Ze Lvova.” Dalibor 11, no. 7 (12 February 1887): 55. Anon. “Drobné zprávy. Mistra Fibicha.” Dalibor 8, no. 1 (7 January 1886): 8. Anon. “Drobné zprávy. Osobní.” Dalibor 8, no. 17 (28 May 1886): 168 . Anon. “Feuilleton. Čeští umělci v cizině. František Simandl.” Dalibor 12, no. 38 (18 October 1890): 298–301. Anon. “Hudební odbor.” Národní politika 7, no. 23 (23 January 1889): 3. Anon. “Hudební skladatel.” Dalibor 26, no. 41 (8 October 1904): 292. Anon. “K Abrahámovinám.” Dalibor 15, no. 3–5 (17 December 1892): 22. Anon. “Laut Mittheilung der […].” ÖMTZ 10, no. 3 (October 1897): 3. Anon. “Listy ze Lvova.” Dalibor 11, no. 18–19 (20 April 1889): 140–1. Anon. “Literatura.” Dalibor 12, no. 1–2 (4 January 1890): 9. Anon. “Mittheilungen und Notizen. Redactionelle Mittheilungen.” ÖMTZ 11, no. 15 (1 April 1899): 10. Anon. “Na Husův pomník (XIII. výkaz).” Národní listy 29, no. 344 (13 December 1889): 6. Anon. “Nachrichten aus Oberösterreich und Salzburg. Concert auf dem Riesen-hofe.” (Linzer)Tages-Post 30, no. 162 (18 July 1894): 4. Anon. “Notizen. Herr Professor.” ÖMTZ 7, no. 1–2 (October 1894): 8. Anon. “Osobní.” Dalibor 10, no. 9 (25 February 1888): 70. Anon. “Osobní.” Dalibor 12, no. 28 (14 June 1890): 220. Anon. “Osobní.” Dalibor 17, no. 21 (20 April 1895): 160. Anon. “Oesterreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung.” Dalibor 17, no. 27 (8 June 1895): 208. Anon. “Různé zprávy.” Dalibor 32, no. 41 (3 September 1910): 311. Anon. “Různé zprávy. Břetislav Lvovský.” Dalibor 30, no. 14 (11 January 1908): 114. Anon. “Různé zprávy. Fibichova ‘Noc na Karlštejně’ orchestrálně ve Lvově.” Dalibor 12, no. 15 (22 March 1890): 118. Anon. “Saal Ehrbar.” ÖMTZ 4, no. 5 (December 1891): 8. Anon. “Vídeň.” Dalibor 17, no. 38 (12 October 1895): 299. Anon. “Vídeň.” Dalibor 19, no. 43–44 (25 September 1897): 344–8. Anon. “Weitere Beispiele aus der jüdischen Pressherschaft.” Der Volksfreund 1, no. 15 (20 February 1913): 4. Anon. “Ze Lvova, v dubnu r. 1890.” Dalibor 12, no. 22 (3 May 1890): 174–5. Anon. “Zprávy. Úmrtí.” Česká hudba 4, no. 12 (1910): 97. Boleška, J. [Josef]. “Feuilleton. Francouz o české hudbě.” Národní listy 38, no. 351 (21 December 1898): 1. Florestan. “Das erste Concert.” ÖMTZ 9, no. 11 (1 February 1899): 5. 129 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today [front page]. ÖMTZ 8, no. 2 (15 October 1895): 1. G. K. [Gustav Kühle]. “Vereinskonzerte.” ÖMTZ 3, no. 3 (1 November 1890): 5. G. K. [Gustav Kühle]. “Vereinskonzerte.” ÖMTZ 3, no. 4 (15 November 1890): 7. Heyer, Jan. “Česká hudební viennensia. Poznámky a doplňky k dosavadnímu zpracování látky.” Dunaj. Menšinová revue 17, no. 3–4 (1940): 349. Knittl, Karel. “Polemisches.” ÖMTZ 8, supplement to issue no. 1 (1 October 1895): 10. Lvovský, B. “Franz Drdla.” ÖMTZ 9, no. 21 (1 July 1897): 1. Lvovský, B. “Johann Kubelik, Violin-Virtuose.” ÖMTZ 11, no. 7 (1 December 1898): 1–2. Lvovsky, B. “Alphonse Maurice und seine Lieder.” Dresdner mehrmonatlicher Feri-alaufenthalt 26, no. 13–14 (25 August 1899): 89–90. Lvovský, B. “Paganini-Abend Jan Kubelík.” ÖMTZ 15, no. 12 (end of March 1904): 5. McColl, Sandra. “New music and the press: Vienna 1896–7, Bruckner, Dvořák, the Laodiceans and Also sprach Zarathustra.” Context 5 (Winter 1993): 28–41. Pich, Prof. Frant. [Fratnišek Pich]. “Kritika. Břetislav Lvovský, op. 8. Kouzlo lásky.” Dalibor 14, no. 11 (27 January 1894): 77. Řežábek, Jan. “Jan Kubelík.” Přemožitelé času 2, no. 6 (1988): 106. Srb-Debrnov, Josef. “Zur Aufklärung.” ÖMTZ 8, supplement to issue no. 1 (1 October 1895): 10. Vasilev, Christo. “Z Ruščuku.” Dalibor 15, no. 42–43 (14 October 1893): 340. 130 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.131-146 Putting Music Criticism to Positive Purpose: William Glock’s Promotion of Three Composers Niall O’Loughlin Univerza v Loughboroughu Loughborough University Preliminaries If any one person was responsible for transforming our musical life from the insular conservatism of the 1960s to a culture that cared about what was happening in the wider world, it was [William] Glock.1 William Glock (1908–2000) began his musical career as a newspaper music critic. Was it a promising start or was it insignificant? The Austrian-born musical commentator and broadcaster, Hans Keller, described music criticism as a phoney profession.2 In a sense he was suggesting that those who made a life of criticising music were frauds, perpetuating a position in which they could pass judgement on the value of any music. In another sense he was making the point that really the critic should be musician first and critic second. Criticism of music, however, is something that happens all the time. It is necessary, however, for another process to precede it: that of listening. Similarly for a music critic these two processes must be present. In another of his polemics, Keller prefaced his discussion of Stravinsky’s Agon with the following words: There is criticism and there is reporting, or at any rate there ought to be. I do not mean the kind of thing we read in the newspapers, where writers criticize things they have heard, and report things they haven’t in or-1 Andrew Clements, “A Night to Remember,” The Guardian, August 9, 1994, London, A6. 2 Hans Keller, Criticism (London: Faber, 1987), 20–36. 131 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today der to conceal the fact. Thus, as criticism and reportage are understood today, the former is the more responsible task, but it should really be the other way round whenever the facts are more important than the critic’s opinions, which is not seldom. At the same time, opinions do enjoy greater popularity with both the reader and the critic himself: they are easier to get for either. The unpopular truth is that while any fool can opine and indeed perchance opine rightly, only a qualified observer can report, and only a qualified reader is interested in facts, plenty of them and nothing but them.3 This locates the position of the music critic, to report or to criticise. What the critic reports will depend on the knowledge of the audience. For example, does the critic inform the audience of the facts about a new piece of music before making any critical remarks? One would think that this is almost self-evident. The more that the critic has to report, the less scope there will then be to make criticisms. There is, on the other hand, the situation where the audience is fully informed of the facts and simply ‘needs’ to be given the criticism of the music itself, or more likely, the distinctive qualities of the performance. Perhaps we should now consider the critic’s position in this. No matter how much the critic has reported about the work/performance in question, there is assumed to be an entitlement to make criticisms. Some of these will be fair, as Keller suggested, but others will be foolish and ultimately invalid. All this depends on the character, experience, and qualifications (in the broadest sense) of the critic in question. This leads us to the example of the English musician, William Glock, who was propelled by circumstances into the complex and unpredictable world of newspaper criticism of music, in which listening is the first prereq-uisite of the critic. He was widely knowledgeable about music of many periods. He was also very much aware of the restricted repertory current at the time in England and the very limited viewpoints of many English musicians. Above all, he was especially interested in contemporary music and by various means sought to increase the public’s awareness and knowledge of its nature, especially the music of what he saw as the most important composers. Newspaper Music Critic After showing considerable talent as a pianist at school, Glock then studied at the University of Cambridge, absorbing the lively Cambridge musical environment and attending concerts in London. First of all he completed 3 Hans Keller, “Stravinsky’s Performance of ‘Agon’: A Report,” Tempo 100 (1972): 19–22. 132 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. a degree in History and started a Music degree which he did not complete. His musical experience was enormous, however, especially as an organ scholar and regular performer. He was able to continue his piano playing, including a performance of Mozart’s Piano Concerto in C minor under Boris Ord, the Director of Music at King’s College. Having heard Artur Schnabel play in Cambridge, he determined to study piano with him. Despite narrow-minded discouragement from the composers Vaughan Williams and Herbert Howells, but with help from Professor Edward Dent and valuable financial support, he was able to study with Schnabel in Berlin for nearly three years, before returning to London in 1933 when conditions became difficult. With few prospects at the time of advancing his career on the piano, he accepted a job as Music Critic for the London newspaper The Daily Telegraph, moving a year later to a similar position at the weekly Sunday newspaper The Observer until 1946. This provided the firm foundation for his future activities which changed the musical life of Britain for ever. His columns make very interesting reading today, focussing on a very wide and interesting range of topics, but notably considering the merits of much contemporary music, then widely disparaged by influential senior British musicians. Glock’s first experience of writing criticism for a newspaper gave him little time for reflection. Reports for The Daily Telegraph had to be submitted for publication the next day, usually consisting of simple descriptions and occasional critical remarks. Those for the weekly Sunday newspaper The Observer gave scope for thoughtful criticism in addition to factual reporting of events. A selection of reviews will give some idea of the scope of his writings. For example, in the pre-World War Two years Glock was given the opportunity to report somewhat controversially from the Salzburg Festival in August 19364 in which the performances of Verdi’s Falstaff, directed by Toscanini, Mozart’s Don Giovanni under Bruno Walter and Mozart’s Cosi fan tutte under Weingartner are reported and assessed critically. Glock was particularly impressive in his analysis of the performances of the most important singers as well as the contributions of the conductors. A report from concerts in Linz in 19365 highlighted the symphonies of Bruckner, then almost unknown in England, and for which he gave very sympathetic accounts of their features. During the war Glock was able to carry on his reports to The Observer with some considerable difficulty while working 4 William Glock, “The Salzburg Festival,” The Observer, August 9, 1936, 13. 5 William Glock, “The Festival at Linz,” The Observer, July 26, 1936, 13. 133 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today in the Royal Air Force. He was stationed in the East Midlands in England from where he was able to report on the local musical events, particularly in Leicester (January 1944)6 and Nottingham (May 1945)7. His reports on the truncated 1939 and 1940 seasons of the Proms make somewhat depressing reading, but at the same time also give a clue to the motivation which powered his later activities in rejuvenating BBC music broadcasts and the London Proms season. He also reported enthusiastically on contemporary music, especially that of Michael Tippett (1943)8 and Bartók on 30 September 19459. The unapproved obituary that he wrote on Bartók, a feared figure in the British musical establishment, led amazingly to his dismissal from the post on The Observer. Developments After leaving The Observer, he embarked on a varied programme of musical activities arising directly from his critical work with the newspapers. For the first significant activity, for the newly established BBC Third Programme, he was invited to undertake a wide-ranging survey of new developments in broadcast music in a number of important musical centres in mainland Europe which included Munich, Prague, Vienna and Berlin. It became quickly obvious to Glock, with his critical attention, that much of the more advanced music performed in Europe was almost completely unknown in England or indeed in any of the United Kingdom. Moreover, there was no desire in the British musical establishment to become familiar with contemporary developments. This encouraged him to think of ways that he could change this situation. One way that this could be effective was to undertake something similar to the specialist continental summer ‘schools’ which combined performance of a very high quality with support from an education programme which enlightened the performance. There were a number of centres which specialised in contemporary music, such as Darmstadt, which attracted both composers and performers. This idea was to bear fruit in the Summer Schools which Glock was invited operate. The first, in 1947, at Bryanston in Dorset, attracted a number of composers and performers to perform and to give lectures on music. Among the visiting musicians were Hindemith, Bo-6 William Glock, “Music,” The Observer, January 16, 1944, 2. 7 William Glock, “Music,” The Observer, May 27, 1945, 2. 8 William Glock, “Music,” The Observer, April 25, 1943, 2. 9 William Glock, “Music,” The Observer, September 30, 1945, 2. 134 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. ris Blacher, Enesco and Nadia Boulanger. It operated for five years before being transferred in 1952 to Dartington Hall in Devon (also in the South of England) where it really gained in importance, with many leading composers such as Berio, Nono, Maderna, Stravinsky and many others taking a prominent part. Supplementing this was the invitation to Glock to become the editor of a new periodical called The Score and IMA Magazine which ran for 28 issues between 1949 and 1961. By all accounts it was a publication that was eagerly read by composers and performers alike, not just in the United Kingdom, but also in Europe and most importantly in the United States. Numerous articles were contributed by composers such as Roger Sessions, Milton Babbitt, John Cage, Stravinsky, Luigi Nono, Roman Vlad, Luciano Berio and even more significantly, Roberto Gerhard, Elliott Carter and Pierre Boulez. Informed and informative articles appeared that presented composers who were very little known at the time in the United Kingdom, such as Hans Werner Henze, Goffredo Petrassi and Edgard Varèse. Special issues were devoted to Stravinsky, who of course was well known, mainly from his early Russian ballets, but also the then little known Olivier Messiaen as the centre of attention in three extensive and well informed articles by the brilliant young David Drew10. One whole issue was devoted to the detailed study of the music of the virtually unknown Roberto Gerhard, who then had only four published works and whose music was rarely performed in the country of his escape from Spain. Boulez’s notorious article “Schoenberg is dead”11 was an early contribution, as was the famous essay by Theodor W. Adorno entitled “Modern Music is Growing Old”.12 BBC Controller of Music In 1959 Glock was appointed Controller of Music at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), a position of considerable influence. He completely overhauled the content of the BBC’s Third Programme and the Proms. He introduced into the broadcasts and the concerts much more adventurous music, especially the contemporary music now being performed on the continent, notably works by Stravinsky, Webern, Schoenberg, Boulez 10 David Drew, “Messiaen—a provisional study,” The Score and IMA Magazine 10 (December 1954): 33–49; 13 (September 1955): 59–73; 14 (December 1955): 41–61. 11 Pierre Boulez, “Schoenberg is Dead,” The Score and IMA Magazine 6 (May 1952): 16– 22. 12 Theodor W. Adorno, “Modern Music is Growing Old,” The Score and IMA Magazine 18 (December 1956): 27–34. 135 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today and Stockhausen. Glock initiated a stream of BBC commissions that helped a number of composers. Now, not without controversy, he had the British musical public at his command. The public concerts, mostly with BBC Symphony Orchestra, presented programmes containing challenging contemporary works. The programmes for the Proms included large numbers of 20th century classics and a wide range of BBC commissions. He left the BBC in 1973, but the legacy of his programmes continued with his successors. The BBC Symphony Orchestra often conducted by Antal Dorati, Colin Davis and later Pierre Boulez, took adventurous contemporary music programmes abroad, notably to the United States, to wide-spread acclaim. General Editor of Eulenburg Books Glock’s practical application of his mission to improve the standing and dissemination, mostly of contemporary music, but also of earlier music as well, was considerably enabled by his position in the 1970s and early 1980s as the general editor of a new enterprise by Schott Music entitled Eulenburg Books. While among the published books, there appeared excellent volumes on Debussy13 and Fauré14 and Ian Kemp’s masterly study of the English composer Michael Tippett,15 what stand out are the two books on Boulez, Conversations with Celestin Deliege 16, and the wide ranging Pierre Boulez A Symposium,17 as well as the first comprehensive and penetrating study of the music of the American composer Elliott Carter.18 Three Composers Using all these activities, Glock singled out for special treatment three composers who had not yet established themselves among British audiences: the Catalan Roberto Gerhard, the American Elliott Carter and the French-man Pierre Boulez. All three composers were also prolific writers of essays, Gerhard in Spanish and English, Carter mostly in English and Boulez in French and sometimes English. All three were often outspoken and con-13 Stefan Jarocinski, Debussy: Impressionism and Symbolism (London: Eulenburg, 1976) and Robin Holloway, Debussy and Wagner (London: Eulenburg, 1979). 14 Robert Orledge, Gabriel Fauré (London: Eulenburg, 1979). 15 Ian Kemp, Tippett, the composer and his music (London: Eulenburg, 1984). 16 Pierre Boulez, Conversations with Célestin Deliège (London: Eulenburg, 1976). 17 William Glock, ed., Pierre Boulez, a Symposium (London: Eulenburg, 1986). 18 David Schiff, The Music of Elliott Carter, 1st edition (London: Eulenburg, 1983). 136 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. troversial, defining techniques and philosophies of contemporary thought, not just music. Very early on in the early 1950s, Glock recognised their very distinctive and important characters, both in their compositions and in their writings. He visited continental meetings, notably the ISCM festival in Baden-Baden in 1955, which was the location for the first performances of Gerhard’s Symphony No. 1 and Boulez’s Le marteau sans maître, both conducted by Hans Rosbaud, and Elliott Carter’s Sonata for cello and piano. Roberto Gerhard Gerhard had fled from Franco’s Spain to England in 1939 and made his home in Cambridge with a composition fellowship at King’s College.19 His works in the first decade of his life in England were relatively modest, deriving from his Catalan and Spanish background. He then returned to the twelve-note technique which he had derived from his study with Schoenberg with a short serial work, Capriccio for flute of 1949, the foundation for most of the music he was now going to write. In the early 1950s with only four published works, Glock published his important article “Tonality in Twelve-Tone music” in The Score in 1952 and a second article “The Contemporary Musical Situation” in June 1956.20 His reputation spread steadily, notably with the premiere of his outstanding Symphony No. 1, at the ISCM Festival in Baden-Baden on 21 June 1955, which Glock attended with great enthusiasm and which proved to be a landmark in Gerhard’s development. It extended Schoenberg’s twelve-note technique in a unique way, creating a dramatic work whose secrets lay in the history of the Spanish civil war. Glock then presented Gerhard with a career-changing edition of The Score which featured in-depth studies of his music.21 In 1957 he invited Gerhard to give a course at the Dartington Summer School joining a very distinguished list of composers. With Glock’s appointment as Controller of Music of the BBC, Gerhard’s position was very strong. A combination of prominent performances, and commissions followed from Glock’s BBC Music 19 Niall O’Loughlin, “Escape from Catalonia: The Composing Experience of Roberto Gerhard,” in Glasbene migracije: stičišče evropske raznolikosti – Musical Migrations: Crossroads of European musical diversity, ed. Jernej Weiss (Koper, Ljubljana: Univerza na Primorskem, Festival Ljubljana, 2017), 381–400, https://zalozba.upr.si /ISBN/978-961-6984-94-2.pdf. 20 Roberto Gerhard, “Tonality in Twelve-Tone music,” The Score and IMA Magazine 6 (May 1952): 23–35; Roberto Gerhard, “The Contemporary Musical Situation,” The Score and IMA Magazine 16 (June 1956): 7–18. 21 William Glock, ed., The Score and IMA Magazine 17 [Special Roberto Gerhard issue] (September 1956) including “Comment,” 7. 137 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Division. The First Symphony was performed in the UK for the first time by the BBC Symphony Orchestra on 14 February 1962 conducted by Rudolf Schwarz 22 and at the Proms on 7 September 1962 conducted by Norman Del Mar. The second part of the Proms performance comprised the Symphony, while the first half consisted of works by Beethoven (Piano Concerto No. 5 and Symphony No. 4) directed by the principal Proms conductor Sir Malcolm Sargent, who was not in sympathy with many modern works. This was typical of Glock’s programming. A BBC commission was soon awarded for the Symphony No. 2, first performed in London on 28 October 1959 by the BBC Symphony Orchestra conducted by Rudolf Schwarz. The Symphony No. 3 (‘Collages’), a Koussevitzky Foundation commission, was first performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra on 8 February 1961 also conducted by Schwarz and later recorded by the same orchestra under Frederik Prausnitz. The first major recording of Gerhard’s music was published in 196523 including the First Symphony conducted by Antal Dorati, recorded under the auspices of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Further commissions followed including the brilliant Concerto for Orchestra and the large-scale vocal and orchestral setting of The Plague, derived from the novel by Albert Camus (a BBC commission). The Symphony No.4 was commissioned by the New York Philharmonic, but it was performed extensively in Europe by the BBC Symphony Orchestra who also recorded the work.24 None of this would have happened if it had not been for the actions of William Glock. Elliott Carter Carter’s music was actively promoted by Glock. The first recognition came with the publication in 1955 in volume 12 of The Score of Glock’s “A Note on Elliott Carter” and Carter’s article “The Rhythmic Basis of American Mu-22 Colin Mason, “Roberto Gerhard’s First Symphony,” The Musical Times (February 1962): 99–100. 23 Roberto Gerhard, Symphony No. 1/Dances from Don Quixote, sound recording on ASD 613 and ALP 2063 (London: EMI, 1965). The accompanying notes were written by Colin Mason and Joaquim Homs, though it is suspected by Julian White that Gerhard himself produced the detailed analytical presentation. The editor of the notes was David Drew, a friend of Glock’s, and a firm advocate of Gerhard’s music. 24 Roberto Gerhard, Symphony No. 4 and Violin Concerto, BBC SO, conducted by Colin Davis, sound recording on ZRG 701 (London: Decca/Argo, 1972); reissued on SRCD 274 (Burnham, Bucks, UK: Lyrita, 2008). 138 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. sic”.25 Glock had known and played Carter’s Piano Sonata of 1945–46, the first of “three seminal works” that James Wierzbicki identified in his study of the composer.26 The other two pieces from this list, the Cello Sonata of 1948 and the String Quartet No. 1 of 1952 quickly became familiar to Glock. Carter took part in Glock’s Summer School at Dartington in 1957. From 1959 his music began to feature in the BBC’s Proms programmes, eventually a total of 27 works. Unlike for Roberto Gerhard, however, Glock was much more sparing of performances with early performances when he was at the BBC. There are only three: Variations for orchestra (24 August 1966), Double Concerto (30 July 1970) and the Concerto for orchestra (10 August 1972), but these three works were at the time of the performances major ones in Carter’s numerically modest output. An early performance of the Double Concerto on Thursday 30 July 1970, appeared in a programme surprisingly featuring anonymous Medieval dances, and music by J. S. Bach and Francesco Landini. It was in a move like this that Glock was able to draw attention to new and apparently unknown works. The Concerto for Orchestra was performed twice in the Proms in the 1970s in two completely different contexts: the first in a 20th-century programme including works by Cage, Messiaen and Stravinsky with the BBC Symphony Orchestra conducted by Boulez. In a second Proms performance on 30 August 1975 (after Glock had left the BBC), Boulez conducted the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in a concert which paired the Carter Concerto with Mahler’s Ninth Symphony. Clearly the two dozen performances at the BBC Proms of Carter’s music after the end of Glock’s tenure of the post of Controller of the BBC’s Music Division indicates that his successors carried on his support for Elliott Carter. Meanwhile Glock’s position as Editor of Eulenburg Books put him in a position to promote his cause in a different way. The first comprehensive and outstanding analytical study of Carter’s music by David Schiff was published by Eulenburg in 1983, under Glock’s editorship, transforming at a stroke the reception of his music, especially in Europe.27 Although Carter’s music was firmly established in the United States, and to some extent in the United Kingdom, it had made only some headway in Europe. With-25 William Glock, “A Note on Elliott Carter,” The Score and IMA Magazine 12 (June 1955): 47–52. Elliott Carter, “The Rhythmic Basis of American Music,” The Score and IMA Magazine 12 (June 1955): 27–32. 26 James Wierzbicki, Elliott Carter (Urbana, Chicago, Springfield: University of Illi-nois, 2011), 32–49. 27 Schiff, The Music of Elliott Carter, 1st edition. 139 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today out the appearance of Schiff’s study, the European position of Carter’s music would have been a great deal more difficult. Pierre Boulez The position of Pierre Boulez was different for a number reasons. The most obvious difference from Gerhard and Carter was that Boulez was a supremely gifted orchestral conductor, especially of difficult contemporary music. Glock encouraged and cajoled him into undertaking the enormously important task of presenting the most important advanced music of the time. Boulez did not conduct all the new works at the proms or the public symphony concerts, because in addition Glock did have the services of talented English conductors like Norman Del Mar and John Carewe, and of the then chief conductor of the BBC Symphony Orchestra, Rudolf Schwarz. This was especially important for the works in the concerts that were not to the taste of the principal Proms conductor in the 1960s, Sir Malcolm Sargent. The other important factor was that Boulez was a fastidious composer, taking a long time to compose his works to his satisfaction as well as constantly revising his music. Consequently, unlike Gerhard but like Carter, he had relatively few acknowledged works to his name. The most famous of his early works, Le marteau sans maître, provided Glock with a opportunity to draw the public’s attention to the composer. It had had various performances in England in the few years after the premiere in Baden-Baden. It was, moreover, one key to Glock’s promotion of the composer’s reputation, in one of the most notorious examples of his programming. The first in a series of Thursday Invitation Concerts initiated by Glock took place in the BBC Studios in Maida Vale, North London on 7 January 1960 with a performance of Boulez’s Le marteau sans maître played by the New Music Ensemble directed by the brilliant young conductor John Carewe and outrageously sandwiched between two late String Quintets of Mozart (in E flat, K614 before Le marteau sans maître and in C, K515 after the interval), played by the distinguished Amadeus String Quartet and Cecil Aronow-itz.28 The delightful opening of the E flat Quintet set the tone for the fre-netic motivic activity of the Boulez, while the beautiful melodic and motivic activity of the C major Quintet brought stark relief to the audience. The shock resonated among the audience at the concert,29 who would never 28 Personal notes from the concert. 29 Personal recollection. 140 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. forget Le marteau sans maître. The Boulez work was soon reported in detail, from a repeat performance, by Harold Rutland in The Musical Times.30 Le marteau sans maître was performed four times (one incomplete) at the Proms, but was joined by numerous other works championed by Glock. One such was the large-scale Pli selon pli of which one movement only was performed in 1961 before the complete work was played in 1969. Once established at the BBC Proms, Boulez’s works never left the event.31 Even long after Glock’s retirement and death, there was a very important series in 2012 at the Proms of all the Beethoven symphonies in which Daniel Baren-boim conducted the East-West Divan Orchestra. Interspersed between the symphonies were numerous works by Pierre Boulez, contrasting the old and the new in a brilliant juxtaposition that William Glock himself would have approved.32 Boulez’s music also benefitted enormously from two books published under the editorship of Glock. The conversations with the Belgian musicologist Célestin Deliège, translated from the French, gave a very detailed but sympathetic overview of Boulez’s music up to 1975.33 Glock had an even more important role in the symposium that he edited and was published in 1986.34 Included were important essays on Boulez’s work by the music critic Peter Heyworth, formerly of The Observer and The New Yorker (the first 50 years), Susan Bradshaw (the instrumental and vocal music), the American pianist Charles Rosen (the piano music), Célestin Deliège (the poetic connections) and, Glock himself in a remarkable exposition of the composer’s work with him at the BBC. 30 Harold Rutland, “Notes and Comments,” The Musical Times, April 1960, 233–4. See also the wide-ranging and very perceptive analytical chapter by Paul Griffiths in Boulez (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), 28–38. For detailed investigation of the serial construction see Pascal Decroupet’s “Serial Organisation and Beyond: Cross-Relations of Determinants in Le Marteau sans maître and the Dynamic Pitch- -Algorithm of ‘Constellation’,” in: Edward Campbell and Peter O’Hagan, Pierre Boulez Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 108–38. 31 For details of Boulez’s work with Glock in the years in London see: Peter O’Hagan, “Pierre Boulez in London: the William Glock Years,” in: Edward Campbell and Peter O’Hagan, Pierre Boulez Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 303–26. 32 The works were Derive 2 (20 July), Dialogue de l’ombre double (21 July), Mémoriale and Messagesquisses (23 July) and Anthèmes 2 (24 July). Video recordings of all the Beethoven performances were issued on DVD (London: Decca 074 3817, 2012), but without the Boulez works. 33 Boulez, Conversations with Célestin Deliège. 34 Glock, Pierre Boulez: a Symposium. 141 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Glock’s Achievement It would be difficult to overestimate Glock’s influence on the development of these three composers. Commissions, performances and articles always seemed to follow Glock’s initial interest. All this was achieved by a musician who had spent his formative working years as a music critic, reporting on concerts, broadcasts, writing obituaries and making critical assessments of the work of composers and performing musicians. It was this experience which reinforced his feeling that British audiences were unresponsive to new music and especially the reputations of a small number of selected composers. It was as if he made it his mission at all costs to promote and publicise this small group of contemporary composers. At the same time using his numerous opportunities, he was able to transform the response of the listening public on the radio and that of the audiences at the BBC Symphony Orchestra’s public concerts, mostly at the Royal Festival Hall in London and at the BBC London Proms, as well as many other locations in the United Kingdom, and later on in many places worldwide. Bibliography Literature Adkins, Monty and Michael Russ, eds. The Roberto Gerhard Companion, Farn-ham, UK: Ashgate, 2013. Adkins, Monty and Michael Russ, eds. Essays on Roberto Gerhard, Newcas-tle-on-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2017. Atherton, David, ed. Programme Book for the London Sinfonietta Schoenberg-Gerhard Series. London: London Sinfonietta Productions, 1973. Boland, Marguerite and John Link, eds. El iott Carter Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Boulez, Pierre. Boulez on Music Today. London: Faber, 1971. Boulez, Pierre. Conversations with Célestin Deliège. London: Eulenburg, 1976. Boulez, Pierre. Orientations: Col ected Writings. London: Faber, 1986. Boulez, Pierre. Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Campbell, Edward and Peter O’Hagan, eds. Boulez Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Capuzzo, Guy. El iott Carter’s What Next? Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2012. 142 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. Carter, Elliott. The Writings of El iott Carter, edited by Elsa and Kurt Stone. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977. Carter, Elliott. Col ected Essays and Lectures, 1937–1995, edited by Jonathan Bernard. Rochester: Rochester University Press, 1997. Carter, Elliott. The String Quartets. New York: Associated Music Publishers/Boos-ey & Hawkes, 1998. Decroupet. Pascal. “Serial Organisation and Beyond: Cross-Relations of Determinants in Le Marteau sans maî tre and the Dynamic Pitch-Algorithm of ‘Constellation’.” In: Edward Campbell and Peter O’Hagan, Pierre Boulez Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Edwards, Allen. Flawed Words and Stubborn Sounds: a Conversation with El iott Carter. New York: Norton, 1971. Emmery, Laura. Compositional Process in El iott Carter’s String Quartets; a Study in Sketches. Abingdon: Routledge, 2021. Gerhard, Roberto. Gerhard on Music. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000. Glock, William. The BBC‘s Music Policy. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1963. Glock, William, ed. Pierre Boulez, a Symposium. London: Eulenburg, 1986. Glock, William. “‘Elliott Carter’ [Munich Tribute 1981].” In: William Glock, Notes in Advance, an Autobiography in Music, 181–6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Glock, William. Notes in Advance: an Autobiography in Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Griffiths, Paul. Boulez. London: Oxford University Press, 1978. Holloway, Robin. Debussy and Wagner. London: Eulenburg, 1979. Homs, Joaquim. Robert Gerhard and his Music. Sheffield: Anglo-Catalan Society, 2000. Jarocinski, Stefan. Debussy: Impressionism and Symbolism. London: Eulenburg, 1976. Keller, Hans. Criticism. London: Faber, 1987. Kemp, Ian. Tippett, the composer and his music. London: Eulenburg, 1984 Lendle, Gabriela. Zwölftontechnik als neue Form von Tonalität: zu Roberto Gerhards quixotischen Code. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2015. Ligeti, György. “Pierre Boulez: Decision and Automatism in Structure 1a.” In Young Composers: die Reihe, vol. 4, edited by Herbert Eimert, 36–62. Bryn Mawr: Presser/Universal, 1960. Link, John. El iott Carter’s Late Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 143 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Mellers, Wilfrid. Music in a New Found Land. London: Barrie & Rockcliff, 1964, 102–21. Mitchell, Donald. The Language of Modern Music. London: Faber, 1963. Mitchell, Rachel. An Examination of the Integration of Serial procedures and Folk-loric Elements in the Music of Roberto Gerhard (1896–1970). PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2009. O’Hagan, Peter. “Pierre Boulez in London: the William Glock Years.” In: Edward Campbell and Peter O’Hagan, Pierre Boulez Studies, 303–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Orledge, Robert. Gabriel Fauré. London: Eulenburg, 1979. Ross, Alex. All the Rest is Noise. London: Fourth Estate, 2008. Schiff, David. The Music of El iott Carter, 1st edition. London: Eulenburg, 1983. Schiff, David. The Music of El iott Carter, 2nd edition. London: Faber, 1998. Schiff, David. Carter ( The Master Musicians). New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Stacey, Peter F. Boulez and the Modern Concept. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1987. Wierzbicki, James. El iott Carter. Urbana, Chicago, Springfield: University of Illi-nois, 2011. Articles Adorno, Theodor W. “Modern Music is Growing Old.” The Score and IMA Magazine 18 (December 1956): 27–34. Boulez, Pierre. “Trajectoires: Ravel, Stravinsky, Schönberg.” Contrepoints, 6 (1949): 122–42. English translation: “Trajectories Ravel, Stravinsky, Schoenberg.” In: Pierre Boulez, Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship, 188–208. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Boulez, Pierre. “Schoenberg is Dead.” The Score and IMA Magazine 6 (May 1952): 16–22. Reprinted in: Boulez, Pierre. Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship, 209–14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Carter, Elliott. “The Rhythmic Basis of American Music.” The Score and IMA Magazine 12 (June 1955): 27–32. Reprinted in The Writings of El iott Carter, edited by E. and K. Stone, 160–6. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977, and in Col ected Essays and Lectures, 1937–1995, edited by Jonathan Bernard, 57– 62. Rochester: Rochester University Press, 1997. Clements, Andrew. “A Night to Remember.” The Guardian, August 9, 1994, London, A6. Del Mar, Norman. “Gerhard as an Orchestral composer.” The Score and IMA Magazine 17 (September 1956): 13–9. 144 putting music criticism to positive purpose: william glock .. Drew, David. “Messiaen—a provisional study.” The Score and IMA Magazine 10 (December 1954): 33–49; 13 (September 1955): 59–73; 14 (December 1955): 41–61. Drew, David. “Roberto Gerhard: the Musical Character.” The Score and IMA Magazine 17 (September 1956): 29–39. Gerhard, Roberto. “English Musical Life: a Symposium.” Tempo 11 (June 1945): 2–6. Gerhard, Roberto. “Tonality in Twelve-Tone music.” The Score and IMA Magazine 6 (May 1952): 23–35. Reprinted in Gerhard on Music (2000), 116–28. Gerhard, Roberto. “Reply to George Perle.” The Score and IMA Magazine 9 (September 1954): 59–60. Gerhard, Roberto. “The Contemporary Musical Situation.” The Score and IMA Magazine 16 (June 1956): 7–18. Reprinted in Gerhard on Music (2000), 24–33. Gerhard, Roberto. “Developments in Twelve-note Technique.” The Score and IMA Magazine 17 (September 1956): 61–72. Reprinted in Gerhard on Music (2000), 129–38. Gerhard, Roberto. “Twelve-note technique in Stravinsky.” The Score and IMA Magazine 20 (June 1957): 38–43. Reprinted in Gerhard on Music (2000), 148– 56, plus plates 1–10. Gerhard, Roberto. “Apropos Mr. Stadlen.” The Score and IMA Magazine 24 (July 1958): 50–7. Gerhard, Roberto. “Some Lectures by Webern.” The Score and IMA Magazine 28 (January 1961): 25–8. Reprinted in Gerhard on Music (2000), 142–7. Glock, William. “The Festival at Linz.” The Observer, July 26, 1936, 13. Glock, William. “The Salzburg Festival.” The Observer, August 9, 1936, 13. Glock, William. “Music.” The Observer, April 25, 1943, 2. Glock, William. “Music.” The Observer, January 16, 1944, 2. Glock, William. “Music.” The Observer, May 27, 1945, 2. Glock, William. “Music.” The Observer, September 30, 1945, 2. Glock, William. “A Note on Elliott Carter.” The Score and IMA Magazine 12 (June 1955): 47–52. Glock, William, ed. The Score and IMA Magazine 17 [Special Roberto Gerhard issue] (September 1956), including “Comment,” 7. Keller, Hans. “Stravinsky’s Performance of ‘Agon’: A Report.” Tempo 100 (1972): 19–22. Mason, Colin. “Roberto Gerhard’s First Symphony.” The Musical Times (February 1962): 99–100. Nash, Peter Paul. “The Wind Quintet.” Tempo 139 (December 1981): 5–11. Nono, Luigi. “The historical reality of music today.” The Score and IMA Magazine 27 (July 1960): 41–5. O’Loughlin, Niall. “Escape from Catalonia: The Composing Experience of Roberto Gerhard.” In Glasbene migracije: stičišče evropske raznolikosti – Musical Migrations: Crossroads of European musical diversity, edited 145 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today by Jernej Weiss, 381–400. Koper, Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem, Festival Ljubljana, 2017. https://zalozba.upr.si/ISBN/978-961-6984 -94-2.pdf. Rochberg, George. “Indeterminacy in the new music.” The Score and IMA Magazine 26 (January 1960): 9–19. Rutland, Harold. “Notes and Comments.” The Musical Times, April 1960, 233–4. Shaw-Taylor, Desmond. “Gerhard’s Greatness” [obituary]. The Sunday Times, January 11, 1970. Sproston, Darren. “Thematicism in Gerhard’s Concerto for Orchestra.” Tempo 184 (March 1993): 18–22. Sproston, Darren. “Serial Structures in Roberto Gerhard’s First and Second Symphonies.” Tempo 248 (April 2009): 21–34. Surian, Elvidio. “The Score” [and I. M. A. Magazine]. RIPM ( Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals 1760–1966), 2015. https://www.ripm .org/?page=JournalInfo&ABB=SCO. Vlad, Roman. “My First Impressions of Roberto Gerhard’s Music.” The Score and IMA Magazine 17 (September 1956): 27–34. White, Julian. “Gerhard’s Secret Programme: Symphony of Hope.” The Musical Times (March 1998): 19–28. Wright, David. “Concerts for Coteries, or Music for All? Glock’s Proms Reconsidered.” The Musical Times 149, No. 1904 (Autumn, 2008): 3–34. Recordings Boulez, Pierre. Le marteau sans maître. Hilary Summers, Ensemble contemporain, Pierre Boulez, 479 0565. Berlin: Deutsche Grammophon, 2005. Boulez, Pierre. Pli selon pli. BBC Symphony Orchestra, Pierre Boulez, ECD 88074. Paris: Erato, 1983. Carter, Elliott. Double Concerto. Paul Jacobs, Charles Rosen, English Chamber Orchestra, Prausnitz [recorded London 1968], MS7191.New York: CBS, 1968; S72717, London: CBS, 1968; 88765 49994 2, New York: Sony, 2013. Carter, Elliott. Concerto for orchestra. New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Bern-stein, SMK 60203. New York: Sony, 1998. Carter, Elliott. Canon for 4 – Homage to Wil iam. The California Ear Unit, NA019 CD. San Francisco: New Albion, 1989. Gerhard, Roberto. Symphony No. 1 and Dances from Don Quixote. BBC Symphony Orchestra, Antal Dorati, ASD 613 and ALP 2063. London: EMI, 1965. Gerhard, Roberto. Symphony No. 4. BBC Symphony Orchestra, Colin Davis, ZRG 701. London: Decca/Argo, 1972; reissued on SRCD 274, Burnham, Bucks, UK: Lyrita, 2008. 146 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.147-167 Music Criticism in Ireland Wolfgang Marx Univerzitetni kolidž v Dublinu University Col ege Dublin Music criticism in some shape or form is probably as old as music itself. As Christopher Dingle and Dominic McHugh state, “[t] he earliest types of criticism were undoubtedly part of oral cultures and traditions, just like the music they would have been discussing”.1 Once a theory of music was developed and treatises on this topic were written down, they often reveal indirect examples or hints of criticism.2 However, music criticism as we understand it in Western societies today is tied to the emergence of newspapers and journals and the spread of literacy in the eighteenth century, yet was only fully crystallised during the twentieth century: Professional music criticism in the form of reviews of live and/or recorded performances established itself as a legitimate practice in published media during the first half of the 20th century.3 Dingle and McHugh highlight another aspect that became common at this point: “[T] he straightforward use of the critic’s name [rather than no sig-1 Christopher Dingle and Dominic McHugh, “Stop the Press? The Changing Media of Music Criticism,” in The Cambridge History of Music Criticism, ed. Christopher Dingle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 695–706, https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/10463/. 2 Dingle’s The Cambridge History of Music Criticism provides insightful examples of this development. 3 Elena Alessandri, Dawn Rose, Olivier Senn, Katrin Szamotulski, Antonio Baldassarre and Victoria Jane Williamson, “Consumer on Critique: A Survey of Classical Music Listeners’ Engagement with Classical Music Reviews,” Music & Science 3 (2020): 1–2, https:/doi.org/10.1177/2059204320931337. 147 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today nature at all, initials or a pseudonym] increasingly became the norm during the course of the twentieth century.”4 Music criticism in Ireland has followed the general developments in other countries, yet with some specific deviations due to local conditions. In this chapter I will look at examples from three different periods of its history: the emergence of Irish music criticism in the mid-nineteenth century, the later part of the twentieth century as exemplified by the career of Charles Acton, and the impact of the digital revolution in the twenty-first century. Today, music criticism covers all kinds of music, from popular via traditional to classical. However, in the past this was not the case – in the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, critical attention was focused on classical music only. To this day scholarly discussion of music criticism still focuses much more on classical reviewing than its share in today’s review publications warrants. Irish Music Criticism in the Nineteenth Century A randomly selected issue from the Irish Times may serve as an example of Irish music criticism in the nineteenth century. It was published on Saturday, 22 September 1860, and I have mainly selected it because it contains three music-related articles. The Irish Times (which had only been founded in 1859) was the newspaper of the Protestant ascendancy class, so it catered particularly for the Anglo-Irish ruling elite in Dublin. The music-related reviews and announcements appear on page 2 of that Saturday’s issue in a section entitled “Fashionable Intelligence”, which also offers what would today be called celebrity news (such as who was received by the Queen and where some high-ranking aristocrats arrived or what they did yesterday). Let us first focus on a brief announcement of “an extra morning performance” by the Buckley’s Serenaders which had been “commanded” by the Lord Lieutenant, the king’s representative in Dublin.5 This is not a review, of course, yet still provides a useful entry into Irish reporting on musical issues. We are informed that the Lord Lieutenant intends to be present himself and that a “most attractive programme has been published” – yet no detail of the programme is shared here, so this information appears to be far less relevant than the Lord Lieutenant’s attendance. The event will be followed by another appearance of the Serenaders 4 Dingle and McHugh, “Stop the Press?”. 5 Anon., “The Buckley’s Serenaders,” The Irish Times, September 22, 1860, 2. 148 music criticism in ireland on the same evening, with the paper stipulating that “a large attendance upon both occasions will testify public appreciation of their merits”.6 This almost sounds as if the paper is putting pressure on its readers to attend the performances. The announcement does not mention anything about the group or the programme they will perform; all the information we get is about the event as a social occasion – particularly that the morning performance is associated with the Lord Lieutenant and will be attended by him, so attendance will offer an occasion to meet or at least be in the same room as this luminary. Nothing appears more important to the (unnamed) Irish Times writer than that. What is not mentioned in this brief announcement is that “Buckley’s Serenaders” were a US-based blackface minstrel troupe consisting of James Buckley and his three sons, who in 1860−1861 undertook their second tour of England and Ireland.7 That they offered two performances on the same day in Dublin indicates that they were well received in the Irish capital. Under the heading “Morning Concert”, the paper offers a more extended review of a recital featuring five singers and a pianist. Its success, it argues, stemmed from the “excel ence of the programme,” the singers and “the favourable condition of the weather. ”8 The (mainly Italian) performers presented a range of Italian pieces and also a few Irish songs. The focus here lies on the interaction of Italian and Irish cultures and musicality. For example, Madame Grisi’s rendition of the Irish song “Home, Sweet Home” was “characterised by true feeling and pathos, and, although supported by the richest cultivation, lost nothing of the simplicity and ‘nature’ at her hand. ”9 Signor Mario’s version of “Goodbye, Sweetheart” was, on the other hand, “a little Italian”, yet “nevertheless, met with an enthusiastic reception.”10 What does the juxtaposition of “cultivation” and “Italian” style versus Irish “true feeling” and “simplicity” mean? Michael Murphy reports an argument made against the Italian style by the journal The Theatre in a review of a vocal recital in 1831. The reviewer castigates the “scientific embel-lishments” which destroyed the “natural pathetic ease and the softness of the 6 Ibid. 7 Robert B. Winans, “Buckley Family,” in Grove Music Online, https://doi. org/10.1093 /gmo/9781561592630.article.A2234604. 8 Anon., “Morning Concert,” The Irish Times, September 22, 1860, 2. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 149 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Irish melody. ”11 What shines through here is a certain Irish national pride in their own musical culture and their songs as popularised in Moore’s Irish Melodies 12 or The Petrie Col ection of the Ancient Music of Ireland.13 A much more poignant example is related by another incident during a performance of Donizetti’s opera Lucrezia Borgia in Dublin in 1849 in which the eponymous heroine was sung by the Irish soprano Catherine Hayes (1818−1861). At some point the audience requested she insert the song “The Harp That Once” – which Hayes did. A review in the Dublin Evening Packet described the scene: The progress of the serious opera stopped for the performance of an Irish ballad. It was, in truth, an incident without precedent, and equally without precedent were the roars of gratification that followed: one ardent gentleman in the middle gallery shouting with a voice that was heard above all the tumult, “Musha! God bless you, Catherine darlin”.14 Returning to the Irish Times from 22 September 1860, the review entitled “Theatre Royal – Italian Opera” is the longest and most detailed of the three music-related texts in this issue.15 It is a review of Gluck’s “Orfeo E. Euridice?” [sic]; of its 111 lines, 37 are dedicated to a biography of the composer, followed by a synopsis of 46 lines. The actual review consists of only 24 lines – less than a quarter of the text. In this section we learn that, despite the article’s title indicating an Italian work, the opera was presented in French (“which somewhat detracted from the beauty of the music”) and that Pauline Viardot Garcia was the prima donna. Two other female singers are named (and praised), yet we don’t learn which roles they sang or who else was involved – no male singer is identified. There are a few more music-specific morsels of information, such as “[t] here is little recitative”, but mostly the text is quite bland, general and looks as if it is written by someone who doesn’t know much about music (“The opera […] has a continuous strain of 11 Quoted in: Michael Murphy, “The Musical Press in Nineteenth-Century Ireland,” in Music in Nineteenth-Century Ireland, eds. Michael Murphy and Jan Smaczny [Irish Musical Studies 9] (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007), 270. 12 Thomas Moore, A Selection of Irish Melodies, 10 vols. (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1808–1834). 13 George Petrie, The Petrie Collection of the Ancient Music of Ireland, 2 vols. (Dublin: The University Press, 1855). 14 Dublin Evening Packet, November 5, 1849, quoted in: Michael Murphy, “The Musical Press,” 271. 15 Anon., “Theatre Royal – Italian Opera,” The Irish Times, September 22, 1860, 2. All the quotations and references in the following lines come from this page. 150 music criticism in ireland sweet melody pervading it”). The most surprising information comes at the end, when we are informed that Orfeo ed Euridice was followed by the last act of Bellini’s La Sonnambula and a comic scene by a Signor Ciampi. This lets one speculate that a truncated version of Orfeo must have been presented so that there was still time for more music. It also indicates that dram-aturgical coherence was not a core concern of programming in Dublin at this time; however, this is not unlike the regularly eclectic programming of concerts all over Europe for much of the nineteenth century, which often combined individual movements of symphonies and concertos with selected arias and instrumental solos. Between them, these examples give a good impression of the standard of writing about music in Ireland for much of the nineteenth century. As Michael Murphy has pointed out, it represents most readers’ worst impressions of musical criticism in the daily and weekly newspapers of the nineteenth century, which is to say there is no attempt at criticism in any sense of that term, a problem that was repeatedly lamented in the same era.16 There were no full-time, permanent music critics anywhere, while sometimes “general” journalists without any musical expertise wrote the texts. As articles were generally unsigned there was no way of knowing whether the author had some degree of expertise. Reviews regularly reported less about the quality of the performance and more about who attended, as well as how the audience reacted, as Murphy elaborates: Applause and encores were always recorded to the benefit of the artists and the audience alike: it praised the former for their artistry and the latter for demonstrating their ability to appreciate it. As a mode of social flattery, reporting on applause was an important part of the currency of the musical economy because the notices reassured the middle and upper classes of their status in society, a condition that both necessitat-ed their presence at such social luxuries as opera and on which the entire enterprise depended.17 Apart from the journalists’ lack of expertise, another reason not to trust reviews too much is that newspapers were often intertwined with opera companies; the reviews were “commissioned” in order to sell more seats for future performances, so an objective and potentially negative assess-16 Murphy, “The Musical Press,” 252. 17 Ibid., 254–5. 151 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ment was not in the paper’s interest and would lead to no further invita-tions to review future performances, as well as no future advertisements by the opera company. Finally, some of the reviews published in Irish papers were essentially lifted from British papers which had reviewed the same productions before they moved to Ireland (a common occurrence at the time). Ite O’Donovan describes another practice at the time: “At other times the readers were expected and even directed to peruse the critiques published for the London theatres in order to familiarise themselves with the latest productions.”18 However, during the second half of the nineteenth century, standards began to gradually improve. Murphy links much of this to the first performances of Wagner operas in Ireland ( Lohengrin in 1875, The Flying Dutchman in 1877) – discussing simply what distinguishes them from other operas required some musical expertise. It was also during this time that music reviews began to be signed by their authors, so generally music criticism began to move towards standards as we still know them today.19 Charles Acton and Irish Music Criticism in the Later Twentieth Century The career of Charles Acton probably marks a high point in Irish music criticism. Acton (1914−1999) was the main music critic of the Irish Times from 1955 until 1987. During this period he produced some 6,000 reviews in “a polemical and eminently readable style,”20 focusing not just on classical but also on traditional and sometimes even popular music. He was, however, never on a permanent contract and always got paid per review. Despite coming to this role after a chequered and not always very successful career in several other areas (such as travel agent, charcoal manufacturer and salesman for the Encyclopaedia Britannica), he became enormously influential in Irish musical life. As Richard Pine put it in his obituary for the Guardian: Charles Acton, music critic of the Irish Times who has died aged 84, dominated musical life in Ireland. He was distinguished not only for his trenchant criticism, which contributed to the development of mu-18 Ite O’Donovan, “Music in Irish Periodical Literature 1770–1970” (PhD diss., University College Dublin, 2013), 105–6. 19 Murphy, “The Musical Press,” 265–9. 20 Gareth Cox, “Acton, Charles,” in The Encyclopaedia of Music in Ireland, vol. 1 (Dublin: UCD Press, 2013), 5–6. 152 music criticism in ireland sic-making, but also as a vigorous and passionate commentator on, and participant in, cultural politics in a period which saw an exponential growth in Irish musicianship and musical infrastructure.21 Acton is credited with establishing “standardised and punctual start-ing times for concerts in the capital” and was one of the main campaign-ers for a national concert hall (which was opened in 1981) and generally for adequate funding for music in Ireland.22 He did not just write reviews but also contributed to discussions concerning aesthetics and cultural policy. In recognition of this, he was elected a governor of the Royal Irish Academy of Music in 1957 and was made an honorary fellow in 1990 and its vice president in 1998. He wrote a book on Irish music and musicians23 and co-edited a history of the Royal Irish Academy,24 while being the subject of an extensive biography himself.25 A selection of 65 of his reviews and speeches was published during his lifetime.26 A talk entitled “A Critic’s Creed” which he gave in 1974 in Dublin offers a good insight into his approach to reviewing, yet also into the issues musical life in Ireland had to grapple with during this period.27 In it he emphasised that “[t] he critic’s first responsibility, by a very long way, is to his readers. ”28 Yet he immediately added another duty: “Perhaps an Irish music critic’s prime responsibility is (in theory) the advancement of the practice and enjoyment of music in Ireland.”29 While this second point comes close behind the responsibility towards the readers, for Acton the two can and often do reinforce each other – there is no conflict between them. The standard of classical performance in Ireland at the time was by and large below that in countries like Germany, France or Austria. How 21 Richard Pine, “Obituary: Critic with a Unique Voice That Helped to Shape Irish Musical Culture: Charles Acton,” The Guardian, April 29, 1999, 24, https://www.theguardian.com/news/1999/apr/29/guardianobituaries. 22 Ibid. 23 Charles Acton, Irish Music and Musicians (Dublin: Eason & Son, 1978). 24 Richard Pine and Charles Acton, eds., To Talent Alone: Royal Irish Academy, 1848– 1998 (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1998). 25 Richard Pine, Charles: The Life and World of Charles Acton, 1914–1999 (Dublin: The Liliput Press, 2010). 26 Gareth Cox, ed., Acton’s Music: Reviews of Dublin’s Musical Life, 1955–1985 (Bray: Kilbride Books, 1996). 27 Charles Acton, “A Critic’s Creed. A Talk by Charles Acton,” The Gate Theatre, October 20, 1974, quoted in: Cox, Acton’s music, 15–29. 28 Acton, “A Critic’s Creed,” 17. 29 Ibid., 18. 153 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today should a reviewer react to this state of affairs? Is there one “absolute” way of judging, or do circumstances have to be taken into account? Acton had a clear position on this question: There is a school of criticism [. .] that there is only one standard of judgement – the highest. He would have one judge the RÉSO by the standard of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra and castigate them when they are below those standards. I believe that idea to be utterly wrong, im-practicable and harmful. [. .] however valid such a standard might be in London, Paris, Vienna, New York or San Francisco, it is invalid in Dublin, or in any capital of a musically small country.30 As Acton added, judging Irish performers according to international standards would discourage both performers and audiences, while virtually every review would be “slaughter”. Yet how should standards for Irish performances be determined, then? Not in an absolute but rather a more relative way, based on local comparisons and the development of performers over time: I believe that one has to set a standard for each event and consider how the actual example compares with that standard. [. .] I believe that (broadly speaking) the standard of judgement should be what the particular performer is capable of, tempered by whether that is proper to the reader’s attention. Thus, a performance in a student concert may rightly be described as outstanding if it is so in the context of Dublin student concerts.31 Thus, a Messiah presented in Dublin during a Christmas season should be judged in comparison with the many others performed there that December, as well as with previous renditions by the same conductor, soloists, choir and orchestra. However, these “local” standards did not apply to visiting foreign performers; they were to be judged according to international expectations. Over time, foreign performers are meant to raise local standards, and if they can’t provide examples of those international standards, they should not come to Ireland: There is no earthly point in importing Britons, Germans, Americans or Italians unless they can give us something we should not get without them. [. .] It is straightforward common sense that the Irish artist of suf-30 Ibid. RÉSO stands for Radio Éireann Symphony Orchestra. Later this ensemble transformed into today’s National Symphony Orchestra. 31 Ibid., 18–9. 154 music criticism in ireland ficient merit should be able to expect support from Irish audiences and Irish critics.32 The last point is one that Acton expanded on repeatedly in his talk (and is also reflected in many of his reviews): “[T] he critic should encourage the performance of Irish works.”33 Irish performers as well as composers deserve the special support of Irish audiences – and also of Irish critics. He saw this as the only way to improve Irish standards of performance and composition over time. And he was right – today they certainly are higher than they were in his time. There are more Irish composers of international renown than ever before, such as Gerald Barry, Jennifer Walshe or Donnacha Dennehy, and also more internationally successful performers, including Tara Erraught, Barry Douglas or Finghin Collins. For its size Ireland has a thriving operatic scene, with around three newly commissioned works premiered every season. Of course, Charles Acton was not the only person responsible for this, yet he exercised much more influence than can normally be expected from a critic; he got as close as anyone could in Ireland to influencing public opinion and cultural policy in a way similar to Joachim Kaiser or Heinz-Klaus Metzger in Germany. In many ways his age can be regarded as a pinnacle in Irish music criticism. Irish Music Criticism in the Digital Age In recent decades the role of music criticism in Irish newspapers has been in continuous decline. Today the Irish Times does not regularly review concerts, reserving individual reports only for the biggest international stars (be it of classical, popular or traditional music). Instead, the paper offers Michael Dervan, Charles Acton’s successor as its main music critic, a column every Wednesday to collectively review a range of events during the past week, with very little space available for each individual recital or concert. Other Irish newspapers dedicate even less space to the coverage of musical events (of any genre). Music theatre premieres and festival events are reviewed more regularly. Music-specific journals such as the Irish Journal of Music naturally include reviews more regularly, as they represent one of the core functions of their existence.34 Founded in 2000, the Journal of Music started its existence 32 Ibid., 19. 33 Ibid., 24. 34 “Reviews,” The Journal of Music, https://journalofmusic.com/reviews. 155 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today in print, yet moved quickly online and stopped operating as a print medium many years ago. Like in most other areas, the digital revolution has been a massive game changer in the field of music criticism. It has affected what might be called formal and informal music criticism, giving opportunity for the latter to arise in the first place. This section will look at the review practice of an Irish online journal before presenting two examples of informal discussions of a recital and a movie on social media which – according to my hy-pothesis – are more and more likely to inform music listeners (and movie watchers), to the detriment of formal reviews. GoldenPlec is an Irish online music magazine that was founded by two friends in 2002. It produces some interviews and feature articles and has occasionally engaged in event curation, yet its bread and butter are album and live reviews, covering popular, traditional and classical music performed or released in Ireland or featuring Irish artists. Popular music receives the most attention, while classical and traditional musics are covered less often. At the time of writing, recent live reviews cover artists such as Dep-eche Mode, Peter Gabriel and Bruce Springsteen, as well as Mozart’s Così fan tutte and the “New Music Dublin Festival” of contemporary art music.35 Recent album reviews focus exclusively on popular music.36 On their webpages the two editors explain GoldenPlec’s basic modus operandi as follows: Team members do not receive a wage and everyone works voluntarily on items they put themselves forward for. [. .] GoldenPlec is currently maintained by a team of 5 deputy editors, 52 writers and 25 photographers.37 In “ca. 2018” the journal had ca. 250,000 monthly page views and 100,000 monthly visitors.38 Not only are the writers and other content pro-viders not paid, there is also not really a budget – apart from occasional advertisements on the webpage, the journal generates virtually no income, and GoldenPlec’s two founding editors developed the webpages themselves. Most of the 52 writers cover popular music; events or albums are only reviewed if one of the writers expresses an interest in doing so – since no wages are paid the editors cannot commission anyone to write a review.39 35 “Live Reviews,” GoldenPlec, https://www.goldenplec.com/live-reviews/. 36 “Album Reviews,” GoldenPlec, https://www.goldenplec.com/album-reviews/. 37 “About Us,” GoldenPlec, https://www.goldenplec.com/about-us/. 38 Ibid. 39 The information in this paragraph stems from an interview with Michael Lee, GoldenPlec’s classical editor, which was conducted in Dublin on 3 March 2023. 156 music criticism in ireland Currently there is effectively only one person covering the classical area. Reviewers get free tickets to the event or a free copy of an album, yet no expenses are paid. Hence usually only concerts in places with a resident GoldenPlec contributor can be reviewed (although the classical editor admitted to covering his expenses on occasion himself in order to attend a performance in another city). New reviewers are invited on the webpage to come forward, yet at least in the classical area this happens quite rarely. Generally Goldenplec provides interesting, high-quality reviews. They have not fallen into the trap that Doug Freeman saw emerging in 2008: The ease of online publication and race to post stories first has produced a snap-judgment journalism that increasingly undermines reflection, analysis, and sometimes even simple facts. [. .] The other issue of integrity of reviews in relation to industry affiliations, advertising, and spon-sored events is somewhat more problematic. For many blogs, where one person or a small team handles all aspects of the site and beyond, the division between editorial and business functions is blurred.40 Yet the reason this trap could be avoided is that GoldenPlec doesn’t have a business function; it is mainly run by and for enthusiasts. No one is making money with it. This includes the reviewers – they are prime examples of one of Tim Page’s main concerns regarding music criticism today: “Worst of all, almost nobody gets paid.”41 Generally, people expect internet content to be free (with the exception of online shopping, of course), and most would not frequent an online music journal if they had to pay for it. Large companies such as Google or Meta can make their money through advertising and the marketing of their user data, yet small pages like GoldenPlec can at most get a few ads, which won’t generate significant income. Does this mean one can only run a local music criticism journal as an enthusiast, provided one finds enough co-enthusiasts who contribute to it for free in their spare time? The jury is out on this, yet the danger is certainly there. The feedback sections of online shops such as Amazon and even more so social media provide another, if unstructured, competition for formal music criticism. Most of us probably check the feedback left below items 40 Doug Freeman, “Online Integrity: Music Criticism 2.0,” The Austin Chronicle, April 11, 2008, https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/music/2008-04-11/611521/. 41 Tim Page, “In Memory of the Critic’s Trade,” 21CM, De Pauw University, September 12, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20200923072319/http://21cm.org/magazine/state-of-the-art-form/2019/09/12/in-memory-of-the-critics-trade/. 157 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today we consider purchasing – knowing full well that some of them may be ficti-tious, produced on behalf of the seller. As Tim Page has highlighted, some of the record reviews on Amazon are startlingly erudite, but they are in the minority. Still, for better and worse, there are few gate-keepers, people to guide a curious reader toward writing that will be both authoritative and as open-minded as possible.42 However, I only get to see feedback of this kind once I have opened the page offering a product such as a recording, so I have already expressed a certain degree of interest in it. In blogs, vlogs and social media, I encounter content without knowing beforehand what it will be. Here a much broader range of people can be reached. As Elena Alessandri et al. have pointed out, [s]ome have suggested that while print media devote less and less space to professional arts coverage, non-professional blogs and message boards are luring the audience away from professional criticism.43 This is because “in the age of peer opinion sharing and quick communication channels it is not clear what place music critics’ judgements still hold in the classical music market.”44 Christopher Dingle concurs with this and goes even further when pointing out that the advent of Facebook and, particularly, Twitter has taken criticism out of its privileged domain as a specialist activity and enabled the general public to give individual responses to performances based on personal experience rather than perceived qualification.45 Already in 2008 Doug Freeman saw blogs and other webpages as an ever-increasing danger for music criticism and its formal outlets: Online sites and individual blogs are gaining increasing critical influence and force within the music industry, a reality perhaps most evident in the recent foldings of magazines like Harp, No Depression, Resonance, and Bluegrass Now, which have either closed shop or switched to 42 Ibid. 43 Alessandri et al., “Consumer on Critique,” 2. 44 Elena Alessandri, Antonio Baldassarre and Victoria Jane Williamson, “The Critic’s Voice: On the Role and Function of Criticism of Classical Music Recordings,” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022): 1, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925394. 45 Dingle and McHugh, “Stop the Press?” Of course, at the time of writing the influence of Twitter (now known as “X”) may be waning, yet there are enough other platforms competing with it, ready to take over its market share. 158 music criticism in ireland a strictly online format. It’s a trend endemic to the entire print industry, not just music publications. Freeman particularly bemoans the “loss of in-depth, feature articles. ”46 Today very few of us are not active on at least one social media platform. My own filter bubble within this space consists largely of people with a significant interest in music, so it is not uncommon that I encounter dialogues such as the following (in which the contributors have been anonymised). It engages with a piano recital that took place in early March 2023 in Cambridge, UK. There were altogether 30 comments on the original post; I have left some of them out here, while some typos remain unchanged. (A) Yesterday was Chopin’s birthday, so I spent half an evening listening to a young international star murdering Chopin. The choice in the interval was either to leave, or to have a glass of wine first. ( B) Yes, it was painful. ( A) second half any better? ( B) (A) no ( C) Who? There’s a pretty big choice out there. Szymon Nehring and Rafał Blechacz are pretty OK though. ( D) Where was this? ( D) And what was this player doing with the Chopin? ( A) (D) Well let’s say destroying the line, the pulse, and the balance for the sake of theatrical effects which wore off after 5 minutes ( A) It was in Cambridge ( D) (A) I understand that. Thank you. I wish I could play better. but then I’m not young, nor an international star. Perhaps you will play us some Chopin. ( A) (D) I am not a pianist, I just can’t keep my critical opinions to myself ( D) (A) you must play an instrument, surely. ( E) “perhaps the most ‘complete’ pianist of his age” ( A) (E) him! ( F) Perhaps this choice is brilliantly described in Chopin’s music. ( G) very few people now play Chopin well: too loud, too fast and virtuosic. The harsh, percussive modern instruments don’t help either. ( H) So − leave, or leave buzzed? 46 Freeman, “Online Integrity: Music Criticism 2.0.” 159 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ( I) Piqued by curiosity, I listened to a little of his op.9 no 2 and cou-ldn’t get through it. Murder indeed! ( I) The rubato is particularly baffling. ( J) For public benefit, name the culprit to enable avoidance. ( K) I acquired a cd of Louis Lortie playing the Ballades interspersed with a selection of Nocturnes plus the Barcarolle and Berceu-se. I don’t think I will ever hear Chopin played better. ( K) I remember him at Leeds – wonderful player. Example 1: Facebook discussion of a Chopin recital While there is quite a bit of non-critical banter here, there is also some serious assessment of the unnamed pianist’s playing style. Overall this is not a review, of course, yet it still contains more informed judgement than the nineteenth-century reviews we looked at above. Its mix of social banter/reporting and critical assessment is more personal, yet otherwise not that far away from the Irish Times in 1860 (except, of course, that we would hardly find a negative review there, as pointed out above). While these comments were written as responses to individual statements (and thus not primarily aiming for a large audience), everyone active on social media is aware of the fact that hundreds or even thousands of people may read their lines. Certainly the person who started this thread did so in order to reach as large an audience among their friends as possible, and many friends of friends may also get to see it. I see exchanges like this one so regularly that it may be warranted to speak of a new, alternative and semi-public social media reviewing scene. My second example is a thread that developed on my own Facebook feed between 13 and 23 January 2023 about Tár, a movie about the downfall of an acclaimed female classical conductor played by Cate Blanchett. The film triggered often heated discussions, particularly among “culture war-riors”. My initial post is already an indirect response to some of the reactions I had read in the feeds of Facebook friends. In this example I don’t anonymise my own contributions. (Wolfgang Marx) Just coming back from watching “Tár”. Given that I have read several quite diverse reviews and comments, here are three aspects I found particularly interesting (spoiler alert!). While Tár seems to “win” the Julliard scene at the beginning the rest of the movie demonstrates in great detail that she herself is the best example of the division of art and artist not really working, at least not while the artist is still alive, or hasn’t been dead for a few centuries. She turns out 160 music criticism in ireland to be a devious character who manipulates (often vulnerable) people, destroys careers (to the extent of driving people to suicide) and schemes and lies all the time. So in a way the student is vindicated by the entire rest of the movie, and one could argue that Tár has to stress the division of art and artist (or better artistic and private persona) for otherwise she could – at least subconsciously – never look into the mirror. Secondly, at its heart this is not a film about music (although the “Death in Venice” context of Mahler 5 provides interesting associations). We never really get a meaningful picture of Tár’s artistry; those few clips of at most 30 seconds during rehearsals are not enough to warrant that, as much as some have talked about her funny conducting technique. Ultimately we have to believe that she is a great conductor, it is not demonstrated – and probably rightly so. (This reminds me of McClary’s argument that the better composers never included the song that gets Orfeo back Eurydice in their operas – they knew that any attempt to realise the divine music that swayed the gods would inevitably disappoint, so they only had someone reporting about it. Only secondary composers tried setting it, and their efforts did indeed always disappoint). The focus is entirely on the downfall of a complex and deeply flawed character – her being a celebrated artist is “just” the backdrop for that, and the rehearsal scenes part of the outline of her personality/character rather than her artistry. Finally, much has been made of Marin Alsop’s critique of the film, namely that the first big movie about a female conductor does her gender a disservice by making its main character a female equivalent of someone like James Levine. Yet Alsop is explicitly named in one of the first lines Tár has in the movie (I think the second one) – and not for her artistry as such but as the first of four examples of women having made it in conducting, so – according to Tar – no further special support of female conductors is necessary anymore. It seems therefore not only to be expected but even appropriate if Alsop’s response focuses entirely on that aspect; she was directly challenged – it’s almost a bait. I would be interested in other people’s views of this fascinating movie. It’s a highly complex character study, and as such very well made. As a sidenote, I was surprised how much German dialogue during the rehearsal scenes was left unsubtitled (Cate Blanchett’s umlaute are excellent, by the way). ( L) Completely disagree with your first point. Even if Tar is off the mark in her treatment of the student--frankly, I don’t think she is, much--and wrong, *he* is desperately wrong and fucked up himself. “I don’t have time for ‘cis male composers’ like JSB”? Stay the hell away from music, schmuck! Thus I don’t view this scene as a synecdoche for her devious and ultimately disintegrating character. 161 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today I also feel the choice not to show her excellence as a musician is, certainly, intentional, and arguably artistically intelligent. Just as, perhaps save for her bizarre roughing up of the schoolgirl, we don’t see her abuse. Despite the brilliant actor’s presence in every scene, much of what is crucial remains offscreen, to be uncovered and pondered on our own. I have to agree that the film is not “about” music; nor, eventu-ell (wie sagt man das?), even musicians. It’s a straight up tragedy, sensitively and knowledgeably told in the experience-language of music and musicians; no? (And, bitte sehr, we don’t *see* Oedipus kill his father nor romance his mother.) Yes, indeed; her German is excellent. Finally, Alsop’s comments are tendentious misunderstandings. Offended as a conductor, woman, and lesbian, was it? The first is easily disposed. The plot dynamic concerns a person in a position of power, based in artistic accomplishment. The second perspective is more complex, indeed debatable. I think it does a disservice to the film’s subtlety to view it as a male narrative cruelly and unjustly stapled onto a female character. Yet I would not say that gender is irrelevant. The key moment may be when she says early on that Alsop et. al. had prepared the way for her, so now she believes gender is insignificant, NB, to *music*. She could be *wrong* in this, and we must realize her error. But I believe that the framework is that, thanks to art--thanks to music--she is now in a position to indulge her tragic character flaws, ultimately culminating in her downfall. That is more important to what’s happening than her lesbianism, or indeed her gender. The tiny scene towards the end when we find that her true name is “Linda” and her social origins are ostensibly American working class may be a subtle key. Her brother accuses her of living a lie with her entire life. Otherwise, class is conspicuous by its absence throughout. Might the film be another telling of Gatsby? Worth considering. Wolfgang Marx (L) It’s not black and white in the Julliard scene, even if both of them make it appear that way. I don’t mean that we should ignore JSB’s music, of course, but that the argument that art and artist can be kept separate is no longer valid, at least not with regard to living ones. The first 30 minutes of the movie are so over-the-top anti-woke that it’s clearly a caricature, particularly given that this doesn’t come up again explicitly later on. I can’t imagine that any conservatoire student would adopt that aggressive a stance in this kind of 162 music criticism in ireland situation in real life. It’s meant to act as a bait, just like Tár’s comments in the opening interview. I agree that much of her manipulative behaviour is not shown directly, but a few times it clearly shines through. There are her devastating references for Krista, her hints to Francesca that she will give her the job (while her remarks to others at the same time make it clear that that was never her intention), or the way in which she puts Elgar on the programme and secures the solo part for her favourite. Btw, that she has highly qualified musicians as her personal assistants to maintain her diary and carry her bags beggars belief. “The key moment may be when she says early on that Alsop et. al. had prepared the way for her, so now she believes gender is insignificant, NB, to *music*.” That is also an example of her callousness – I made it, so no further support for women is necessary anymore? And while there are many deeper layers and subtleties here it can’t have escaped the makers of this movie that they are creating a kind of female Levine, and that this would have predictable consequences in today’s world (particularly given that I believe this is an original story, not based on a book or so). The point about class (and about Tár making both her first and surname sounding more unique/interesting, trying to escape her upbringing) is well made. ( L) “I made it, so no further support for women is necessary anymore.” Yes; I think that’s the nuance exactly. But I believe “it can’t have escaped the makers of this movie that they are creating a kind of female Levine” is a point entirely parallel to Alsop’s not at all articulated objections to the character’s lesbianism. The decision to take a character, especially one as carefully ambiguously drawn as this one, as an outright, en clair synecdoche or allegorical representation is on the interpreter, not the artist. No? Bluntly, Alsop is projecting. Of course the filmmakers would have foreseen such a thing. But they elected, fairly to my mind, to ignore the prior restraint that would impose on their storytelling. And I thought the most bluntly “anti-woke” scene was her “trial” before the whatcha-macallit board, which stopped short of presenting the procedure as a kangaroo court; but only just. ( M) Beyond content analysis, I do think there’s more to say about the way the film is directed and paced. ( L) (M) Absolutely. These prominent but ultimately rather external considerations distract from the genuine art of the piece. 163 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ( N) Great to read your comments, Wolfgang. In brief: I found Tár fascinating. True, the protagonist is an appalling individual, but – regardless of the script’s allusions to real-life composers and conductors, #MeToo, and canon discourses – the film is a work of fiction. As such, I’m a little surprised by some of the hostility towards it (not just from Marin Alsop, but also fellow feminist musicologists). Example 2: Facebook discussion of the movie Tár Of course, this is about a movie rather than about a musical performance or recording, yet this movie is about music – and the genres of music and film critique are similar enough to support my point here. While both examples are unstructured and don’t try to discuss their topic in as exhau-stive a way as a formal review would, both provide critical insights that people who have not been to the recital or seen the movie may find interesting. The second example discusses the issues it raises in much more detail than the first one, yet both combine information and entertainment for their readers in ways that many “traditional” reviews might not. In the case of Tár, I encountered so many social media “reviews” of this kind that I almost didn’t need to read any formal film review in order to get all the relevant information. (I still did it as there are some film critics whose views I value, yet it wouldn’t have been necessary to make me want to watch the movie.) Conclusion The three stages of Irish music criticism discussed here cover some 160 years. In their early days, reviews in Irish newspapers could be of very low quality, often written by journalists without any music-specific knowledge who treated concerts as social occasions. Until late in the nineteenth century, reviews remained unsigned, while statements about the pieces performed and the quality of their renditions were regularly bland and uninformed. Some papers used reviews to pursue a nationalist agenda, praising Irish music as a proxy of Irish culture and nationhood. Charles Acton’s term as main concert reviewer of the Irish Times marks a high point of music criticism in Ireland. Reviews were published more regularly, their quality had improved significantly and Acton’s influence beyond the pages of his newspaper attests to the regard he was held in by the Irish musical scene. His approach to reviewing Irish performances that did not (yet) match those by top international ensembles is an instructive example of the issues arising in a country that was more at the periph-164 music criticism in ireland ery of the international music scene. Of course, this only applied in an art music context; in traditional and (at least since the rise of U2) also popular music, Ireland has been much more central for a long time. The changes in music criticism triggered by the digital revolution are not specific to Ireland; they occur everywhere in equal measure. While a journal such as GoldenPlec will only find a significant readership in Ireland, informal music criticism on social media reaches across geographical boundaries and can easily involve people from several continents. Just as more and more people nowadays get their news virtually exclusively from social media feeds (which means being restricted to what their friends are sharing), they could also choose social media as the main source of their music (and other) reviews, with the added benefit of being able to interact directly with those engaging in the reviewing activity. While the developments in Ireland are not fundamentally different from those in other European countries, the small size of the country and its comparatively even smaller musical scene have posed specific challenges. For example, there has never been a full-time, permanent music critic in Ireland – and apart from Acton it is unlikely that anyone could ever make a living by reviewing concerts and recordings alone. By relying more and more on the unpaid work of enthusiasts and the equally unpaid contributions to social media discussions, music criticism in the digital realm has only exacerbated this trend in the twenty-first century. Bibliography Literature Acton, Charles. Irish Music and Musicians. Dublin: Eason & Son, 1978. Acton, Charles. “A Critic’s Creed. A Talk by Charles Acton.” The Gate Theatre, October 20, 1974. Quoted in Acton’s Music: Reviews of Dublin’s Musical Life, 1955–1985, edited by Gareth Cox, 15–29. Bray: Kilbride Books, 1996. Cox, Gareth, ed. Acton’s Music: Reviews of Dublin’s Musical Life, 1955–1985. Bray: Kilbride Books, 1996. Cox, Gareth. “Acton, Charles.” In The Encyclopaedia of Music in Ireland, vol. 1, 5–6. Dublin: UCD Press, 2013. Dingle, Christopher, and Dominic McHugh. “Stop the Press? The Changing Media of Music Criticism.” In The Cambridge History of Music Criticism, edited by Christopher Dingle, 695–706. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/10463/. 165 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Dublin Evening Packet, November 5, 1849. Quoted in Michael Murphy, “The Musical Press in Nineteenth-Century Ireland.” In Music in Nineteenth-Century Ireland, edited by Michael Murphy and Jan Smaczny [Irish Musical Studies 9], 271. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007. Moore, Thomas. A Selection of Irish Melodies, 10 vols. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1808–1834. Murphy, Michael. “The Musical Press in Nineteenth-Century Ireland.” In Music in Nineteenth-Century Ireland, edited by Michael Murphy and Jan Smaczny [Irish Musical Studies 9], 252–77. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007. O’Donovan, Ite. “Music in Irish Periodical Literature 1770–1970.” PhD diss., University College Dublin, 2013. Pine, Richard, and Charles Acton, eds. To Talent Alone: Royal Irish Academy, 1848–1998. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1998. Pine, Richard. Charles: The Life and World of Charles Acton, 1914–1999. Dublin: The Liliput Press, 2010. Petrie, George. The Petrie Col ection of the Ancient Music of Ireland, 2 vols. Dublin: The University Press, 1855. Periodicals “About Us.” GoldenPlec. https://www.goldenplec.com/about-us/. “Album Reviews.” GoldenPlec. https://www.goldenplec.com/album-reviews/. Alessandri, Elena, Dawn Rose, Olivier Senn, Katrin Szamotulski, Antonio Baldassarre, and Victoria Jane Williamson. “Consumer on Critique: A Survey of Classical Music Listeners’ Engagement with Classical Music Reviews.” Music & Science 3 (2020): 1–19. https:/doi.org/10.1177/2059204320931337. Alessandri, Elena, Antonio Baldassarre and Victoria Jane Williamson. “The Critic’s Voice: On the Role and Function of Criticism of Classical Music Recordings.” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389 /fpsyg.2022.925394. Anon. “Morning Concert.” The Irish Times, September 22, 1860, 2. Anon. “The Buckley’s Serenaders.” The Irish Times, September 22, 1860, 2. Anon. “Theatre Royal – Italian Opera.” The Irish Times, September 22, 1860, 2. Freeman, Doug. “Online Integrity: Music Criticism 2.0.” The Austin Chronicle, April 11, 2008. https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/music/2008-04-11/611521/. “Live Reviews.” GoldenPlec. https://www.goldenplec.com/live-reviews/. Page, Tim. “In Memory of the Critic’s Trade.” 21CM, De Pauw University, September 12, 2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20200923072319/http://21cm.org/ magazine/state-of-the-art-form/2019/09/12/in-memory-of-the-critics-trade/. 166 music criticism in ireland Pine, Richard. “Obituary: Critic with a Unique Voice That Helped to Shape Irish Musical Culture: Charles Acton.” The Guardian, April 29, 1999, 24. https:// www.theguardian.com/news/1999/apr/29/guardianobituaries. “Reviews.” The Journal of Music. https://journalofmusic.com/reviews. Winans, Robert B. “Buckley Family.” In Grove Music Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/ gmo/9781561592630.article.A2234604. 167 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.169-196 Music in the Karlovac Press in the Nineteenth Century1 Lucija Konfic Hrvaška akademija znanosti in umetnosti Zagreb Croatian Academy of Science and Arts Zagreb Introduction – Karlovac’s newspapers and their editors 1 The musical life of the city of Karlovac (Croatia) has been the subject of research interest on several occasions, among which the books With Music through the History of Karlovac (ed. Ljiljana Ščedrov)2 and Music of Four Rivers: History of the Music of the Karlovčko Pokuplje Region 3 by Grozdana Marošević stand out. The strategic position between the Croatian interior and the Adriatic coast, the proximity of the capital, and the fact that many dignitaries had property in that area, enabled Karlovac to develop both eco-nomically and socially, and also emerge as a city with a lively and dynamic cultural and musical life. Elements of that cultural and musical life, which would otherwise have remained hidden or difficult to access, are presented to us in a special way in the local newspapers published in Karlovac. Most of the information about daily happenings in the city did not reach the newspapers in the capital (or beyond). In addition to the German-language newspaper Der Pilger (1841–1847), the following Croatian-language newspapers were published in Karlovac in the nineteenth century in which we 1 The research for this work was funded by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project IP-2020-02-4277 “Institutionalization of Modern Bourgeois Musical Culture in the 19th Century in Civil Croatia and the Military Frontier” (MusInst19). 2 Ljiljana Ščedrov, ed., Glazbom kroz povijest Karlovca [With Music through the History of Karlovac] (Karlovac: Glazbena škola Karlovac – Karlovačka županija, 1994). 3 Grozdana Marošević, Glazba četiriju rijeka. Povijest glazbe Karlovačkog Pokuplja [Music of Four Rivers: History of Music of the Karlovačko Pokuplje Region] (Zagreb: IEF, HMD, 2010). 169 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today can find articles about music: Karlovački viestnik (1861), Glasonoša (1861– 1865), Karlovački viestnik (1866), Svjetlo (1884–1905), Sloga (1886–1888) and Karlovački glasnik (1899–1903), and until the end of the First World War, Glasonoša (1905–1909) and Sloga (1910–1919). Some of the aforementioned newspapers were short-lived because the response from subscribers was not satisfactory, and the financial expenses for printing were high. This paper will present the preliminary results of research on the subject undertaken within the project “Institutionalization of Modern Bourgeois Musical Culture in the 19th Century in Civil Croatia and the Military Frontier (MusInst19)” funded by the Croatian Science Foundation.4 Table 1: Overview of Karlovac newspapers in the “long” nineteenth century Title Editor/s Period of publication Frequency Notes Der Pilger Franz C. Schall 1841–1847 3 times a week Owner Ivan Ne- pomuk Prettner Karlovački Dragutin Akurti, from viestnik 13 March Skender Vab- 1861 semi-weekly 02 Jan – 29 Jun ković/Fabković from the end of September 1864 to the end Abel Lukšić, from 1862 of December Skender Vabković, in 1865, published Glasonoša 1863 Josip Eugen Tomić, 1861–1865 semi-weekly in Vienna; mo- Ivan Trnski, from May stly news abo- 1865 August Šenoa ut Slavs in Vi- enna, almost no more news from Karlovac 06 Jan – 25 Sep; Karlovački Owner, editor viestnik Ljudevit Tomšić 1866 weekly and publisher Dragutin Kos- tinčer Svjetlo Adolf G. Prettner, from 1884–1886; 1889– 5 1891 Dušan Lopašić 1905 semi-weekly 4 So far, the research covers the papers Karlovački viestnik (1861), Glasonoša (1861– 1865), Karlovački viestnik (1866), Svjetlo, Sloga (1886–1888) and Karlovački glasnik. 5 It is stated in the literature that Sloga (1886), as well as Glasonoša (1905) and Sloga (1910) are stages in the publishing of the Svjetlo newspaper. The name change in 1886 to Sloga happened due to censorship and the confiscation of the paper. Cf. Marija Vrbetić, “Novinstvo u Karlovcu 1841–1941 [Journalism in Karlovac 1841–1941],” in Karlovac: 1579–1979, ed. Đuro Zatezalo (Zagreb: Historijski arhiv u Karlovcu, 1979), 313. 170 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century Title Editor/s Period of publication Frequency Notes Sloga Adolf Milković; from 1887 Dragutin Huzina 1886–1888 weekly Karlovački glasnik Dragutin Hauptfeld 1899–1903 weekly Glasonoša Dušan Lopašić 1905–1909 weekly Sloga Dušan Lopašić et al. 1910–1919 weekly Special attention was paid to the types of newspaper articles related to music in the Karlovac press and the range of their topics. An attempt was made to answer the question of what news about music reached the public, how it was presented and, consequently, what the importance of music as a cultural and social factor was in the city of Karlovac throughout the nineteenth century. Who were the editors of the Karlovac newspaper?6 Dragutin Akurti (Accurti; 1829–1885) held a number of important positions: he was a member of parliament, a judge, and a sub-county secretary.7 He was the first editor of the first Karlovac newspaper in the Croatian language, Karlovač ki viestnik (from No. 1 to 20), published by the National Reading Room (Narodna čitaonica) in Karlovac, but he left that position following his move to Rijeka where he was appointed accountant of the Rijeka County. In Rijeka, he was also active on the cultural front as a member of the National Reading Room of Rijeka, and he also participated in performances by theatre volunteers (1854). His place was taken by Skender Fabković/Vabković (1826–1905), who was a teacher at the Main school in Karlovac in 1860.8 From 1861 he edited the newspaper Karlovački vjestnik, from 1862 the newspaper Glasonoša, while from 1866 he edited the pedagogical magazine Napredak, which he himself kept. The editor, owner and printer of the newspaper Glasonoša, which was published from 1861 to 1865, was Abel Lukšić (1826–1901), and the newspaper was closed shortly after Lukšić’s move to Vienna due to the high costs of maintaining the newspaper. Olga Markuševski points out for Lukšić: 6 More about Karlovac newspapers in: Vrbetić, “Novinstvo u Karlovcu 1841–1941,” 303–28. 7 Tatjana Radauš, “Accurti, Dragutin,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 1983, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=283. 8 Branko Pleše, “Fabković, Skender,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 1998, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=5798. 171 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Certainly, his journalistic style distinguishes him from all the editors and newspaper owners of the time. He ‘talks’ very intimately with readers, regularly informs them about the ongoing affairs of his printing house, about publishing problems and perspectives, about his family circumstances, and says a friendly goodbye to them when a paper stops being published.9 In addition to being a bookseller, printer and newspaper editor, Abel Lukšić was also the organizer of guest concerts in Karlovac in the 1860s, which will be mentioned later. In 1866, the newspaper Karlovač ki viestnik was published for a short time and was edited by the Slovenian writer and teacher Ljudevit Tomšić/ Tomšič (1843–1902), who was a teacher in Karlovac in the period from 1865 to 1870.10 In 1867 he printed in Karlovac a collection of songs for “song-loving” school youth, Věnac lěpih pěsmicah: cèrkvenih i světovnih [A wreath of beautiful songs: church and secular]. The gap that occurred after that testifies to the importance of the local press for today’s researcher as an important source of information about everyday life in the city. It wasn’t until 1884 that this was remedied with the start of publishing the newspaper Svjetlo. It was edited in the first phase by Adolf Gustav Prettner. His grandfather Ivan Nepomuk Prettner opened a printing house, bookstore and bookbindery in Karlovac in the 1830s. The editorship was taken over from A. G. Prettner by journalist and writer Dušan Lopašić (1852–1921), whom Ivo Ott describes as an excellent critic of daily life in Karlovac: “Editorials, feuil etons and critical accounts of political, cultural, and especial y communal and city topics, will rank him among the best journalists of his times.”11 The name of Dragutin Hauptfeld (1855–1921) is known as that of the owner of a well-known printing house in Karlovac which operated from 1887 to 1948. Both Hauptfeld (as a baritone) and his children (five sons and five daughters, of whom Draga Hauptfeld (1881–1952) achieved an interna-9 Olga Markuševski, “Još nekoliko napomena o Lukšiću [A few more notes about Luk- šić],” Kaj 11, no. 4 (1979): 53–5. See also: Marija Vrbetić, “Djelovanje Abela Lukšića šezdesetih godina prošlog stoljeća [Activities of Abel Lukšić in the sixties of the last century],” Kaj 11, no. 4 (1979): 47–51. 10 France Koblar, “Tomšič, Ljudevit,” Slovenska biografija, internet edition (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstveno raziskovalni center SAZU, 2013), https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi711854/. 11 Ivo Ott, “Dušan Lopašić, novinar i publicist [Dušan Lopašić, journalist and publicist],” Kaj 11, no. 4 (1979): 61–6. 172 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century tional singing career)12 actively participated in the cultural and musical life of Karlovac.13 To date, we have not been able to find relevant information about the life and activities of the editors of Sloga Adolf Milković (1859?–1920) and Dragutin Huzina (?–?). From these brief descriptions, it can be seen that the aforementioned editors, at the time of their work in these newspapers, were young people of broad general culture who were active participants in the cultural life of Karlovac, the city where they worked for part or for most of their lives. Music in newspapers – types of writing As the previous review shows, newspaper articles in Karlovac cover the decades of the 1840s, the 1860s (1861–65 and the first part of 1866) and the period from 1884 until the end of the First World War. The number and variety of testimonies about musical life in the newspapers testifies to their importance for the creation of a picture of the cultural and musical life of the city. Newspaper articles were, on the one hand, an expression of public opinion on certain topics, while on the other hand, they formed and shaped that opinion. We can distinguish several types of writing related to music. It is important to point out that musical events are covered in this paper in the broadest sense – they include different types of musical events: concerts, dances, parties, combined literary and musical events (e.g. so-called siela or school performances), the role of music in theatrical performances, church music, the role of music in city celebrations (receptions or send-offs of various dignitaries, holidays, etc.), but also music prints, activities of music societies (including minutes of the meetings of music societies or individual musical activities of other city societies), activities of musicians, and obituaries: – News about music events – announcements with basic information – Reports on musical events – notifications about the event with possible comments on the success of the event – Reviews or criticisms of musical events (sometimes in verse) – they bring the reporter’s point of view on the event and its participants 12 Marija Barbieri, “Draga Hauptfeld,” Leksikon opernih pjevača, 2013, https://opera .hr/index.php?p=article&id=2968. 13 Ivan Ott, “Hauptfeld, Dragutin,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2002, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=7313. 173 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today – Reviews of the cultural (and musical) life of the city within the framework of broader city topics – Competitions – Occasional songs – Advertisements. In addition to events in the city of Karlovac, occasionally news is published about events in other Croatian cities – most often from Zagreb, Varaždin, Križevci, but also Koprivnica, Sisak, Petrinja, Rijeka, Požega, Đakovo, Osijek, Senj, Slavonski Brod, Vinkovci and other places – but also in cities outside Croatia: Vienna, Prague, Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje, Sara-jevo, sporadically Rome, Paris, London, etc.14 Although Silvija Tomašić, speaking about music criticism in newspapers outside Zagreb, states that for “Croatian music criticism, only ‘Glasonoša’ has a certain meaning, and it is more than modest”15 when viewed in the wider context of writings about music, we come to previously unknown and rich testimonies of the city’s musical life. News, reports, reviews and criticism of music events The category of musical events and their presence in the local press is undoubtedly the most extensive and the most frequently used in the existing literature.16 Only a small sample of newspaper articles on the subject will 14 On music criticism in the nineteenth century in a broader sense, see: Sanja Majer- -Bobetko, “Glazbena edukacija, reprodukcija, periodika i kritika u Hrvatskoj u drugoj polovici XIX. stoljeća [Music education, reproduction, periodicals and criticism in Croatia in the second half of the nineteenth century],” in Hrvatska i Europa: kultura, znanost i umjetnost, vol. 4: Moderna hrvatska kultura od preporoda do moderne (XIX. stoljeće), ed. M. Ježić (Zagreb: HAZU, Školska knjiga, 2009), 649–53. Regarding Zagreb (but also the wider area) for the first half of the century, see: Snježana Miklaušić-Ćeran, “Odrazi koncertnoga života Zagreba između 1826. i 1858. u zagrebačkim novinama i časopisima [The Reflections of Zagreb Concert Life between 1826 and 1858 in Zagreb Newspapers and Journals],” (PhD diss., University of Zagreb, 2012). On the cultural context: Ivana Anić, “Kulturni život Karlovca u vrijeme Hrvatskog narodnog preporoda [The Cultural Life of Karlovac during the Croatian National Revival],” (PhD Diss., University of Zagreb, 2015). 15 Silvija Tomašić, “Hrvatska glazbena kritika na narodnom jeziku od 1854. do 1870. godine [Croatian music criticism in the vernacular from 1854 to 1870]” (graduate thesis, University of Zagreb, 1980), 49. 16 Cf. Marija Vrbetić and Agneza Szabo, Karlovac na razmeđu stoljeća 1880–1914 [Karlovac at the turn of the century 1880–1914] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1989), eg chapter Musical life, 156–71; Marijana Schneider, “U Karlovcu 1840-ih [In Karlovac in the 1840s],” Zbornik Gradskog muzeja Karlovac, vol. 1 (Karlovac: Muzej grada 174 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century be presented here. The largest number of articles is related to the activities of local societies: the National Reading Room/Narodna čitaonica (since 1838), First Croatian Singing Society “Zora”/Prvo hrvatsko pjevačko društ-vo “Zora” (since 1860), Trading Tambura Society “Hrvatska”/ Trgovačko tamburaško društvo “Hrvatska” (since 1886), Craftsman-Workers’ Society “Nada”/Obrtničko-radničko društvo “Nada” (since 1887) which had its own singing and tambura choir, the Trading Society “Merkur”/ Trgovačko društvo “Merkur“ with its choir (since 1899), the Volunteer Fire Brigade/ Dobrovoljno vatrogasno društvo (since 1871), Lady’s Society of St Aloysius/ Gospojinsko društvo Sv. Vjekoslava (since 1874), Society of St Sava/Društ-vo Sv. Save (since 1893).17 Parties of the Officers’ Casino are followed, as well as concerts of military music and occasionally (although rarely) we also find information related to music within theatre performances or church music. The work of the Karlovac Music School is reported on more or less regularly, as well parties celebrating the end of the school year in general schools (lower schools and gymnasiums). Special attention was given to the concerts of local and foreign musicians who, due to the city’s proximity to Zagreb, willingly organized performances in Karlovac in addition to their Zagreb concerts. Most of the events are of a public or semi-public nature, although the readers occasionally get glimpses of private parties held at the homes of prominent families, such as the soirée at the home of Franjo Türk (1836–1913), reported by “a friend of our paper [ Svjetlo, op. L. K.]:” Over forty people from all social classes, in addition to guests from the surrounding area and Zagreb, gathered in the beautiful rooms of the patriotic and noble host, with whom the gracious hostess competed in kindness and hospitality. The dances were directed by noble Mr Odo Mrzljak, precisely with his extraordinary, bewitching skill which has gained universal, wholehearted recognition.18 In the largest number of articles, we get basic information about musical events. In reports and reviews, music is primarily commented upon in Karlovca, 1964), 65–77; Marija Vrbetić, “Kronika glazbenog života Karlovca od 1884. do 1904. godine [Chronicle of the musical life of Karlovac from 1884 to 1904],” Zvuk, no. 2 (1964): 50–9. 17 Rudolf Strohal, Grad Karlovac opisan i orisan [The town of Karlovac described and outlined] (Karlovac: Tisak M. Fogine, 1906). 18 “Preko četrdeset osoba sviju slojeva, dapače zvanici iz okolice i Zagreba sakupili se u liepih prostorija rodoljubnog i plemenitog domaćina, s kojim se je natjecala milosti-va gdja domaćica u ljubezivosti i gostoljubivosti. Plesovi ravnaše g. Odo pl. Mrzljak, upravo izvanrednom, začaravajućom vieštinom, koja je stekla obće svesrdno priznanje.” Anon., “Soirée Türk,” Svjetlo 3, no. 5 (30 January 1886): 3. 175 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today a general way (“the music was beautiful, ” “the music amazed, ” “it was performed with the greatest accuracy”) or the focus is on whether the choice of music was in accordance with the general cultural climate (e.g. whether the choice of repertoire was sufficiently “national”). Attendance at the musical event is often commented upon, but we also get information on who had access (members, guests or a larger ticket-buying audience). The writings about the concert that the young Czech pianist Ludmila Zadrobilkova (1844–1872) gave in Karlovac on 22 December 1861 can be highlighted as an example of the highly personal approach that a reporter might take. This performance was made possible thanks to the personal acquaintance from Vienna of the artist with the editor of Glasonoša Abel Lukšić and his wife, with whom Zadrobilkova and her mother stayed in Karlovac. The newspaper Glasonoša followed almost every step the artist took – from the announcement of her arrival, the reception, the concert, and the farewell, and several occasional songs were also published. The description of her appearance and character is full of admiration, even idealization: The public papers described our artist with the greatest emotion, mind, and all-powerful skill of their pen: for the time being, nothing else can be said about her except that her dear mother carries her as a gentle bud of a pure Czech rose, a bud we say, who, even at its tenderest age, appears to its observer full of kindness, clarity, personal self-control and burn-ing love for the Slavs, to whom she is proudly associated everywhere.19 Regarding the repertoire we only find out the last names of the composers, and the review of the performance is very poetic in accordance with the earlier description and with a certain reserve due to writer’s own “inexperience” in relation to the writing in other papers that are “strictly critical:” She played seven pieces by herself and by famous composers: Dreišok, Schulhof and Chopin, with so much skill, power, tenderness, fire and poetic levity, that we can’t say a word more about her skill, except sol-19 “Javni listovi opisaše umjetnicu našu največjim čuvstvom, umom, svemožnom vještinom pera svojega: nama pako za sada neda se ništa drugoga o njoj izreći, već da joj mila majka u povodu svojem vodi nježan popoljak[!] čiste ružice česke, pupuljak[!] ve-limo, koj se već u najnježnijoj dobi svojoj ukazuje motritelju svojemu pun milja, mi-loduha, bistrine, osebne samovlade i goruće ljubavi za Slovjenstvo, kojemu se svagd-je ponosno pribraja.” ***, “Dne 18. t. m. prispje nam u grad […],” Glasonoša 1, no. 19 (22 December 1861): 4. 176 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century emnly confirm all that, so far, other strictly critical newspapers have written about her.20 On the other hand, the concerts held by the Czech singer Ružica Hágenova did not receive nearly as much attention. The Karlovac newspaper published an article about her concert by a reporter from Zagreb with a brief remark that the concert was “quite liked” and that “the singing was worthy of praise,” but complained that the compositions at the concert were already well known (“We only regret that we didn’t hear anything new.”).21 Reporting on the Karlovac concert held on 20 January 1863 the writer was not full of praise, but he tried to express his criticism mildly: “On Mrs Haagen one can see that she is skilled at singing, but the strength and grace of her voice is already disappearing. The sun of her glory prevailed in the west. ”22 In Glasonoša, from January 1864 through the first half of the year, the column “Karlovačke pošurice” [Karlovac’s wits] was published in a feuilleton type with very personal reviews of the reporter on social and cultural events in the city, among which musical events occupy an important place. Although the author’s approach is subjective, the overview we get of the musical activities in the city of Karlovac is more than basic information or report.23 In addition, this type of reporting develops a personal trait in which the reporter is an interlocutor, a trustworthy person who addresses the reader directly, intimately and in a semi-public tone: Let’s be in collusion, let’s get into a nice circle, let’s put our heads together, and let me whisper something in your ear. But only you, dear read-20 “Sedam nam je komadah što svojih što slavno poznatih kompozitorah: Dreišoka, Schulhofa i Chopina preizvrtno tolikom vještinom, moćju, nježnošćju, vatrom i poetičnim uzljetom igrala, da nam se neda niti rečice više o vještini njezinoj prosboriti van svetčano potvrditi sve ono, što su do sada ostale strogo kritičke novine o njoj napi-sale.” ***, “Koncert gospodične Mile Zadrobilkove,” Glasonoša 1, no. 20 (25 December 1861), 4. 21 “Žalimo samo, što nečusmo što novoga.” Anon., “Iz Zagreba. (Dobra kob. – Potreba. – Zabave u dvorani i streljani. – Koncert Ružice Haagenove.),” Glasonoša 3, no. 3 (18 January 1863): 2. 22 “Na gosp. Haagenovoj vidi se, da je pjevanju vješta, al sile i miline glasa nestaje joj već. Sunce joj slave prevagnulo zapadu.” Anon., “Koncert gosp. Haagenove [Conccert of Mrs Haagen],” Glasonoša 3, no. 4 (25 January 1863): 2. 23 See for example: Anon., “Karlovačke pošurice,” Glasonoša 4, no. 4 (17 January 1864): 4. The author perhaps could be Ivan Trnski (1819–1910), who lived in Karlovac at the time and edited Glasonoša. (according to: Milan Grlović, Album zaslužnih Hrvata XIX. stoljeća, 2 vols. (Zagreb: Matićev litografski zavod, 1900)). 177 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ers – you and me. Do you know what’s new? Quietly, quietly, so that no one hears!24 Since the beginning of publication of the Svjetlo newspaper in 1884, we have found detailed reviews and musical reviews of concerts in Karlovac that go a step further than the impression of the performance itself. Thus, already in the second issue of Svjetlo 1884, an unsigned reporter critically reviews the concert of the Singing Society “Zora” held on New Year’s Eve 1883. The author reviews not only the quality of the performance of certain points of the program, the precision of the choir’s intonation, but also the compositions themselves, as well as the quality of the rendition of the German text into Croatian.25 In this sense, in the newspaper Sloga, the contributions signed by D. L. [probably by Dušan Lopašić, op. L. K.] from 1887 should be highlighted, which very precisely dissect individual points of the concert program, emphasizing that everything was written with the best intentions. However, for Zora’s “humorous concert” on 5 February 1887, he concludes: “That’s how we evaluated that ‘humorous’ concert. There was little humour and little ‘concert’, as wel . ”26 On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the death of the Croatian composer Dora Pejačević (1885–1923), let us also mention that in 1904 the citizens of Karlovac also had the opportunity to hear her compositions. Namely, on his tour the Czech violinist Jaroslav Kocián (1883–1950), a student of Otakar Ševčik, played, among other things, two of the countess’s compositions: Canzonetta and Menuetto (probably op. 8 and op. 18, the latter dedicated to Kocian).27 At the concert held on 26 January 1904 in the Zorin-dom (Zora’s Hall) “without previous noise, without any advertising,” as stated by Svjetlo, he played an extensive program in front of a full hall accompanied by the Italian pianist Tullio Voghera (1879–1943) and delight-ed both with his technical skill and his interpretation. For Dora Pejačević’s compositions, the author of the review wrote that “the songs [...] are quite 24 “Ajde da opet šurujemo, da se uhvatimo u liepo kolo, da stavimo glavu uz glavu, pak da vam šapnem koju u uho. Al samo vi, mile čitalice – vi i ja. Al znate šta nova? Tiho, tiho, da nitko nečuje! ,” Anon., “Karlovačke pošurice,” Glasonoša 4, no. 18 (1 May 1864): 2–3. 25 Anon., “Koncert ‘Zore’,” Svjetlo 1, no. 2 (3 January 1884): 1. 26 D. L., “Šaljivi koncert ‘Zore’,” Sloga 2, no. 7 (13 February 1887): 3. 27 Koraljka Kos, Dora Pejačević (Zagreb: JAZU, Muzikološki zavod Muzičke akademije, 1982), 189–90. 178 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century simple, but even here the virtuous artist showed how his soul, so to speak, absorbs everything into itself [...].”28 Reviews of the cultural (and musical) life of the city within the framework of wider city themes City topics are significantly represented in Karlovac newspapers. They serve the role of allowing criticism of the city’s situation on the one hand, but also of offering correctives or acting as instigators of change on the other. We often find evocations of past times in which everything worked better, so that the use of former, better models is encouraged in the current era as well.29 In the articles, questions are posed to the city government but also to the public as a separate entity. if we wanted to write about social life in Karlovac and told only the naked truth, we would get into a lot of trouble or would have to give up on our idea; because within our walls the pleasantly fragrant flower of social life does not bloom [. .] Only in very abbreviated terms will we present to our readers the gradual decline of our domestic societies. [. .] And our general social life, what is it like? Harmony and unity, where are you? Discord and arrogance, where are you not? [. .] And that’s how we reached the point where we have to stop criticizing, where our babbling is over. We will rather show the way with weak forces which will lead us from shaky social relations to harmony and brotherhood.30 It is clear from the newspaper articles that musical life is an important element of the culture of the city of Karlovac. Through the organization of musical associations, societies and institutions, as well as through individual events (concerts, parties), the functioning of society and (dis)agreement 28 “pjesmice […] sasvim jednostavne, ali i tu je vrli umjetnik pokazao kako njegova duša, tako rekući, upija sve u sebe […].” Anon., “Koncert Jaroslava Kociana,” Svjetlo 20, no. 5 (31 January 1904): 3. 29 See for example: Anon., “Družtveni život [Social life],” Svjetlo 6, no. 46 (15 November 1891): 1. 30 “kad bi mi htjeli pisati o družtvenom karlovačkom životu, i o njemu izrekli samo golu golcatu istinu, zapali bi u nemalu nepriliku ili bi morali odustati od naše namisli; jer u naših zidinah necvate ugodno mirisni cvietak družtvenog života […] Tek u vrlo skraćenih redcih predočit ćemo našim čitateljem postepeni nazadak naših domaćih družtva. […] A obći naš družtveni život, kakav je taj? Slogo i jedinstvo, gdje ste vi? Neslogo i nadutosti, gdje vas nije? […] I tako smo dospjeli k točki, gdje nam je presta-ti kritikom, gdje je kraj našeg bugarenja. Mi ćemo radje uz slabe sile naznačiti put, koj će nas privesti iz razklimanih družtvenih odnošaja k slozi i bratimstvu.” Anon., “Družtveni život [Social life],” Svjetlo 1, no. 8 (24 January 1884): 1–2. 179 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today surrounding the realization of a common idea or goal is evaluated. We will single out three examples characteristic of Karlovac: 1. establishment/reorganization of a singing society 2. functioning of the music school, and 3. the need to establish city music.31 In 1866, the Karlovac Singing Society (from 1868 the First Croatian Singing Society “Zora” in Karlovac) at the incentive of Gjuro Klarić (1838– 1909),32 began a reorganization which, as Polović points out, turned the society into “a serious and orderly civil society. ”33 In an article published in the newspaper Karlovački viestnik, Klarić points out the advantages of singing as an activity (desirable entertainment, no initial investment is required, serves as comfort, it is an expression of educated people), foregrounds the society’s task of spreading songs in the vernacular, but also calls for civil pride: Wouldn’t it be a shame for us, the famously patriotic city of Karlovac, if on the occasion of that celebration [Zrinski’s 300th anniversary, op. L. K.] it didn’t have its own singing society?34 Responding to that article in the text “Dvie tri o družtvih” [Two or three words about societies] the unsigned author (possibly the newspaper editor Ljudevit Tomšić) emphasizes the importance of citizen association and warns of two factors that hinder the work of societies – interference in politics and discord.35 However, he raises the issue of the organization of society to a general level by saying: A city without a singing society seems dead to us, and Karlovac does not deserve to be judged that way. Only diligently and harmoniously! 31 The author gave a more detailed presentation on discussions about Karlovac societies and institutions in the nineteenth-century press at an International Round Table within the framework of the MusInst19 project in Zagreb, 8 October 2022. 32 About the life of Gj. Klarić see: Strohal, Grad Karlovac, 239–41. Cf. also: Vjeran Kursar, “Hrvati u gradu na Bosporu: hrvatsko iseljeništvo u osmanskoj prijestolnici Istanbulu u dugom 19. stoljeću,” Hrvatska revija, no. 4 (2013), https://www.matica.hr /hr/399/hrvati-u-gradu-na-bosporu-22748/. 33 Ivan Ott, Draženka Polović, and Ljiljana Ščedrov, Pjesmom za dom. Prvo hrvatsko pjevačko društvo “Zora”, Karlovac 1858–2008 (Karlovac: Gradsko kazalište Zorin dom, Grad Karlovac, 2008), 20. 34 Gjuro Klarić, “Karlovačko pjevačko družtvo,” Karlovački viestnik 1, no. 2 (13 January 1866): 9–10. 35 Anon., “Dvie tri o družtvih,” Karlovački viestnik 1, no. 3 (20 January 1866): 18–9. 180 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century We would advise our city to start some other society, but our principle is: easy, but firm! When the sun suddenly peeks out from behind the clouds, it suddenly hides.36 Regarding the activities of the city’s music school, whose history dates back to 1804, discussions in the Karlovac press had been intense since 1887, and then again around 1900. Problems discussed include the organization of the school and the need for reorganization, the obligations and salaries of teachers, and the justification of spending money from the city budget, while on the other hand, the need for a music school, i.e. its important role in education, is not neglected. A member of that committee and a city representative at the same time asserted in front of us with emphasis: We will not destroy the music school! But, dear sir, the way she is, the way she is now, she will wipe herself out. That wobbly and clumsy machine will fall apart. Nobody can doubt that today, whether Karlovac also needs a music school. That she is completely justified and necessary, but not like this, as she is today, she is not needed like this, and besides, she must not live like this even for a moment longer. Because it’s nothing, a real monster, nonsense.37 Important issues related to music education are also the question of the value of local – Croatian music, the employment of educated local people, but also the evaluation of the artistic profession in general. In 1891, the previously announced reform of the school was started and articles in the Svjetlo newspaper on the one hand welcomed the positive developments related to the music school, especially regarding the creation of new school rules (which were then published in Svjetlo), but on the other hand still lamented 36 “Grad bez pjevačkoga družtva čini nam se mrtav, a Karlovac nezaslužuje, da ga tako sudimo. Samo marljivo i složno! Savietovali bi naš grad i još koje drugo družtvo, ali nam je princip: lagano, no čvrsto! Kad sunce naglo iza oblakah zaviri, naglo se i sak-rije.” Ibid. 37 “Neki je član tog odbora i gradski zastupnik ujedno pred nami uztvrdio emfazom: Mi nedamo zatrieti glasbenu školu! Ali, dragi gospodine, ovakova, kakova li je sada ona će se sama zatrieti. Taj klimavi i nespretni će se stroj razpasti. Nitko nemože danas o tom sumnjati, da li je i za Karlovac potrebna glasbena učiona. Da ona je posve oprav-dana i potrebna, ali ne ovakova, kakova li je danas, takova nije potrebna, a uz to ona nesmije tako ni časak dulje živjeti. Jer nije ništa, pravi monstrum, nonsens.” Gradina, “Glasbena učiona,” Sloga 2, no. 3 (16 January 1887): 2. See also: Gradina, “Glasbena učiona II,” Sloga 2, no. 4 (23 January 1887): 1–2; Gradina, “Glasbena učiona III,” Sloga 2, no. 5 (30 January 1887): 1–2; Gradina, “Glasbena učiona IV,” Sloga 2, no. 6 (6 February 1887): 1–2. 181 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today about its glorious past.38 However, already in the fall of 1892 we learn that despite positive developments, no change took place. This is where the importance of journalism, which is able to loudly highlight the problem and encourage its solution, again comes to light: We waited for a long time, and here in two weeks it’s the new school year, so everything will remain the same again [. .]. It has been more than a year since the new music committee was elected; it’s almost a year to the day since the president of the same school and the director of the music school published the rules for the school in our newspaper [. .]. Well, those rules rest then, and we probably published them, so they think, to fill our columns. [. .] We have waited until now, but from now on we won’t. [. .] So far, we have mentioned some things here and there, but now we will protest until we see success. But these kinds of musical difficulties cannot be endured any longer.39 Unfortunately, there was no success for some time,40 at least until the employment of a new young teacher and organist Dragutin Honsa (1872– 1957) in 1896, who remained in that position until 1901.41 Reviews and criticisms of the music school’s public exams despite the very often positive evaluations of the performed works, were also an opportunity to remind the public about the unresolved organizational situation. What’s more, in 1894, the unsigned author of the text “Public examination of the city’s music school” asked: Will the city of Karlovac really not want to get out of its musical mor-tuary? Where are so many musically educated people, of whom Kar-38 Anon., “Iz Karlovca. Naša glazbena škola,” Svjetlo 6, no. 33 (16 August 1891): 5; Anon., “Glasbena škola,” Svjetlo 6, no. 41 (11 October 1891): 1–2. The rules of the Music school are published in: Svjetlo 6, no. 44 (1 November 1891): 3; Svjetlo 6, no. 45 (8 November 1891): 3; Svjetlo 6, no. 46 (15 November 1891): 3; Svjetlo 6, no. 47 (22 November 1891): 2; Svjetlo 6, no. 48 (29 November 1891): 2. 39 “Čekali smo dosta dugo, a evo za dva ćedna[!] i opet nove školske godine, pa će nam i opet sve ostati pri starom […]. Ima već više godinu dana, što je izabran novi glasbeni odbor; ima godinu skoro dan, što je predsjednik istog i ravnatelj glasbene škole u na- šem listu priobćio javno pravila za školu […]. Nu ta pravila počivaju onda, a mi smo ih valjda priobćili, tako misle, da popunimo naše stupce. […] Dosada smo čekali, ali odsada više nećemo. […] Dosada smo tuj i tamo po koju spomenuli, ali sada ćemo do-tle ‘rogoboriti’, dok nebudemo vidjeli uspjeha. Ali ovakovih glasbenih neprilika nije moguće dalje podnieti.” Anon., “Glasbene neprilike,” Svjetlo 7, no. 36 (4 September 1892): 2. 40 Anon., “Glasbena škola i partes adnexae,” Svjetlo 8, no. 47 (19 November 1893): 2. 41 Marijana Pintar, “Honsa, Dragutin,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2002, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=7772. 182 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century lovac was full? [. .] Friends of progress should also think about that, because it is precisely in nurturing music and musical art that you can see the temper and nobility of the heart not only of an individual, but also of entire nations.42 According to articles in the press, the issue of city music in Karlovac was a sore point. Because of its position and the accommodation of the army, military music was often stationed in the city, which (except in some cases of prohibition) could be engaged for social occasions – concerts, parties, church ceremonies, and even funerals. On the other hand, the formation and maintenance of the city’s music meant a significant expense for the city treasury and a series of organizational challenges (teaching, ensuring of youth musicians, maintenance of instruments, etc.) which led to a permanent balancing between more or less (or shorter) successful city bands throughout nineteenth century and the use of engagements of the present military music (Music of the Slunj Regiment, Music of the 96th Imperial and Royal Infantry Regiment (Ramberg music), Music of the 79th Imp. and Roy. regiment of Count Jelačić, Music of the 96th Imp. and Roy. infantry regiment of Baron Catinelli).43 Thus, for example, the city budget for 1900 considers the possibility of establishing a city music, as well as discussing its organization and quality: Is civic music really that necessary for our city, and is there any chance that military music will return to Karlovac any time soon? It would be nice if Karlovac also had its own civic music, that’s right, but that music would have to be a little different than in some other small town or market place. If it is not complete music, which the city could be proud of, then it would really be better if the city did not spend a single penny for this purpose.44 42 “Zar doista grad Karlovac neće jedared da se makne iz dojakošnjega svoga glazbenog mrtvila? Gdje su toliki glazbeno naobraženi ljudi, kojih je Karlovac pun bio? […] Pri-jatelji napredka treba da se zamisle i u ti, jer se upravo u njegovanju glasbe i glasbene umjetnosti vidi ćud i plemenština srdca ne samo pojedinca, nego i čitavih naroda.” Anon., “Javni izpit ovogradske glasbene škole,” Svjetlo 9, no. 26 (1 July 1894): 2–3. 43 On the history of military and city music In Karlovac, see: Marošević, Glazba četiriju Rijeka, 60–4. 44 “Da li je gradjanska glasba za naš grad baš tako nuždna i da li neima izgleda, da se vojnička glasba za koje vrieme vrati u Karlovac? Liepo bi bilo, kada bi i Karlovac imao svoju gradjansku glasbu, to stoji, ali ta bi glasba morala biti malo drugačija, nego li gdje u kojemu drugom gradiću ili trgovištu. Ako to nebude podpuna glasba, kojom bi se grad mogao ponositi, onda bi doista bolje bilo, da grad netroši u tu svrhu niti nov- čića.” Anon., “Gradski proračun za godinu 1900,” Svjetlo 14, no. 40 (5 November 1899): 1. 183 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today The topic of city music came up for discussion in the city budget at the proposal of the city music committee, but this issue was raised in Svjetlo on several occasions already in March 1899, feeling the “pulse” of the public.45 According to articles from the second part of the year, we learn that the founding of the city’s music as a “little harmonia” that could play at the dances and parties did not happen due to a lack of musicians, as well as a lack of will and support,46 but the management of the Singing Society “Zora” managed to agree with the command of Cattinelli’s 96th Infantry Regiment that a part of its military band would be stationed in the city until spring.47 Competitions Given that the people of Karlovac were enterprising in their work for the “people’s cause,” it is not surprising that in Karlovac newspapers we find announcements or information about calls for compositions as an encouragement to musical creativity. The earliest example can be found in the newspaper Glasonoša in 1862, in which Ivan Trnski’s text “Slava mladosti” [Glory of Youth]48 was published immediately before the poet’s visit to Karlovac.49 The prize was five imperial ducats, and applications were sent to the Glasonoša editorial office. The committee for evaluating the submitted works comprised Oton Hauska (1809–1868),50 the city’s Kapellmeister and composer, Antun Supan, the director of the Karlovac Singing Society at the time, and Janko Modrušan, as a member. The youth for whom the composition was intended were especially asked to: try to understand well every line of this beautiful poem, to think properly in their time and to act according to the spirit and intention of the poet in their life. Dashing youth, dear younglings! May this song be a wake-up song and an incentive for all-round progress, development and glorification of your people!51 45 Anon., “Gradska glasba,” Svjetlo 14, no. 10 (5 March 1899): 1; Anon., “Mala pitanja,” Svjetlo 14, no. 12 (19 March 1899): 1–2. 46 Cf. Anon., “Glasba u Karlovcu,” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 43 (20 October 1900): 3. 47 Anon., “Glasba,” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 48 (24 November 1900): 3. 48 Anon., “Slava mladosti,” Glasonoša 2, no. 5, special supplement (15 January 1862). 49 See: Anon., “Prošle sriede sretno nam prispje,” Glasonoša 2, no. 10 (2 February 1862): 6. 50 Ivona Ajanović-Malinar, “Hauska, Oton,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2002, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=7322. 51 “da nastoji dobro svaku riečcu ove preliepe pjesme shvatiti, valjano razmisliti i u svoje doba prema duhu i nakani pjesnika u životu postupati. Mladeži čila, omladino 184 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century Eight compositions were submitted to the competition, and the jury (after “four full hours of singing and assessing songs from all sides of musical art”) decided to award the prize to the composer, choirmaster and music pedagogue of Czech origin Slavoljub Lžičar (1832–1901).52 The editor of Glasonoša, A. Lukšić, undertook to print the song in thousands of copies so that it could be spread among the school youth. Also, with the aim of spreading national music, in May 1863 Lukšić sent a public request to singing societies and composers to send compositions “that are worth spreading,” intending to set up a music printing department in his printing house and, with the author’s permission, to print sheet music at his own expense.53 Another example of a competition can be found in the newspaper Karlovački viestnik entitled “Natječaj za poputnicu Zrinjskoga” [Competition for the Zrinjski March], on the occasion of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the death of Zrinski in 1866, the main organizer of which was the central committee for the anniversary celebration headed by Gjuro Deželić (1838–1907).54 At the competition (although we don’t find out about mila! bila ti pjesma ova budnicom i podticalom za svestrani napredak, razvijanje i uzveličan je naroda svojega!” Anon., “Slava mladosti.” 52 Anon., “Nagrada napjeva za pjesmu ‘Slava mladosti’ od I. T.,” Glasonoša 2, no. 24 (23 March 1862): 4. Song published in: S. Lžičar, Album hrvatskih napjeva: 100 hrvatskih narodnih napjeva za glasovir (Braunschweig: Henry Litolff’s Verlag, [1881]). More about Lžičar see in: Ivica Golec and Martina Kokolari, “Lžičar, Slavoljub,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, vol. 9 (Zagreb: LZMK, 2021), 217. 53 “Nu budući da mi je poznato, da imade još mnogo više prekrasnih četverospjevah, što u raznih pjevačkih družtvih naše domovine, što u p. n. gospode skladateljah i inih lju-biteljah pjevanja, stoga liepo i milo molim dotičnu gospodu, da mi izvole poslati na moje troškove četverospieve, sborove, davorije i pjesme, koje su širenja vriedne. Ona gospoda, koja mi izvole dati dozvole, da iste napjeve na moj trošak tiskati mogu – jer sam nakan ustrojiti u mojemu zavodu i odsjek za tiskanje pisanih glasbenih komadah – neka mi to izjaviti blagoizvole.“ [ Well, since I know that there are many more beautiful songs in four voices, in various singing societies of our homeland, and from gentlemen composers and other lovers of singing, therefore I nice and kindly ask the respective gentlemen to send me, at my expense, four voice pieces, choirs, davorias and songs, which are worth spreading. Those gentlemen who are willing to give me permission to print their compositions at my expense – because I intend to set up a department for printing music pieces in my institute – please let me know.]. Abel Lukšić, “Molba na sl. pjevačka družtva i gospodu skladatelje glasbe,” Glasonoša 3, no. 22 (31 May 1863): 1–2. 54 Anon., “Natječaj (za poputnicu Zrinjskoga.),” Karlovački viestnik 1, no. 33 (18 August 1866): 263–4. See also: Sanja Majer-Bobetko, “Nikola Šubić Zrinski i Sigetska bitka kao skladateljska inspiracija [Nikola Šubić Zrinski and the Batlle of Siget as a Composer’s Inspiration],” Hrvatska revija, no. 4 (2017), https://www.matica.hr /hr/531/nikola-subic-zrinski-i-sigetska-bitka-kao-skladateljska-inspiracija-27473/. 185 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today it in the Karlovac newspapers), a song by Antun Švarc (1823–1891),55 a teacher at the Music Institute in Zagreb, received the award, while from the collection Deset Zrinskih poputnicah [Ten Zrinski Marches]56 published on that occasion, we learn about other participants in the competition: Josip Grasse (1836–1884; also a teacher at the Music Institute In Zagreb),57 Oton Hauska (Kapellmeister and music teacher from Karlovac), Vilko/Vilim Müller (1800–1873; musician in Zagreb), F. S. Kaczèr (Kapellmeister and member of the Archbishop’s Music Chapel in Kaloča), Vilim Just with two compositions (1826–1883; surveyor of Rijeka County),58 Franjo Ksaver Kuhač (1834– 1911; musician in Osijek),59 Ernest Joanelli (1843–?; music teacher in Petrinja),60 and Ferdinand Wiesner Livadić (1799–1879; landowner in Samobor).61 At a time when there were no newspapers published in Karlovac, the people of Karlovac did not give up on supporting musical creativity. Thus, in the Sisak newspaper Zatočnik Ivan Vončina announces the competition for setting music to the song “Bože živi” [Living God] by Petar Preradović (published in the journal Vienac), stating that the patriots of Karlovac put together and handed me fifteen imperial gold sequins [highlighted in the text], to reward the artist who compos-es the most beautiful melody for that song.62 The compositions for the competition were sent to the editorial office of Zatočnik, while they were judged by a committee composed of members 55 Ivo Goldstein, ed., “(Švarc; Naftali, Anton),” Židovski biografski leksikon, internet edition, https://zbl.lzmk.hr/?p=2115. 56 Deset Zrinskih poputnicah za glasovir: glasbeni Zrinski pomenak tristogodišnjice sigetskog junaka Nikole Šubića Zrinskoga bana hrvatskoga slavljene na 6. 7. 8. i 9. rujna 1866. u Zagrebu, https://digitalna.nsk.hr/pb/?object=view&id=22052. 57 See more in: Zdravko Blažeković, Glazba osjenjena politikom: studije o hrvatskoj glazbi između 17. i 19. Stoljeća [Music in the Shadow of Politics: Essays on Croatian Music between the 17th and 19th Centuries] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2002). 58 Snježana Miklaušić-Ćeran, “Just, Vilim (Wilhelm),” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2005, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=9337. 59 Grozdana Marošević and Sanja Majer-Bobetko, “Kuhač, Franjo Ksaver,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2013, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=10872. 60 Cf. Maruša Zupančić, “The Influx of Bohemian Violinists to Slovenia and Croatia up to the 1920s,” Arti musices 50, no. 1–2 (2019): 284. 61 Koraljka Kos, “Livadić, Ferdo,” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2013, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=11868. 62 “složiše i predadoše mi rodoljubi karlovački petnaest carskih cekinah u zlatu, da se njimi nagradi umjetnik, koji sastavi za tu pjesmu najljepši napjev.” Anon., “Natječaj za napjev pjesmi ‘Bože živi’ od P. P.,” Zatočnik 2, no. 54 (8 March 1870): 3. 186 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century of the editorial staff of Zatočnik, Vienac and the management of the Croatian Singing Society “Kolo” in Zagreb. In later years, city tenders for jobs were also published in the newspapers, as for example on 11 July 1900, where the position of music teacher at the Karlovac Music School is advertised with terms of employment, obligations and salary.63 Ivan Horvat, previously a music teacher in Zemun, was elected to that position, which was published as a separate piece of news,64 in addition to the report from the town assembly.65 He was employed as a teacher for a trial period of one year, and already at his first performance at the traditional Karlovac Christmas Tree ceremony [Svečanost Božićnog drvca] organized by the Lady’s Society of St Aloysius, he presented himself in a positive light: Mr Horvat entered the public for the first time with his well-trained students, and we welcome him with joy, and we are especially happy that we got such a young and skilled choirmaster.66 Horvat led the Music School in Karlovac until 1917, and during that period the school’s considerable progress can be noted.67 Occasional songs Occasional songs can be found especially in the newspaper Glasonoša in the 1860s, accompanying the performances by musicians who visited Kar-63 Annual salary 2000 kruna (without the right to a pension or any kind of provision), probationary period of 1 year. Obligations: 1. playing the organ and singing in the parish church of St Trinity; 2. tutoring of female students in a girls’ high school (2 hours per week); 3. giving singing and violin lessons for music school students (24 hours a week); 4. take care of solemn orchestral masses in the church of St Trinity on holidays and festive occasions; 5. role of head of the city music school. Requirements: Croat or other Slovenian nationality, sufficiently proficient in the Croatian language; Roman Catholic; graduate of the conservatory; a good organist and singer, and an excellent violinist; fully skilled in directing and assembling an orchestra. Anon., “Natječaj,” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 30 (22 July 1900): 4. 64 Anon., “Učiteljem glasbe,” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 36 (1 September 1900): 3. 65 Anon., “Izvješće o red. skupštini grad. zastupstva sl. i kr. grada Karlovca,” Karlovač- ki glasnik 2, no. 36 (1 September 1900): 3. 66 “G. Horvat je prvi put stupio u javnost sa svojim tako dobro uvježbanim učenicima, i mi ga s radošću pozdravljamo, te nas upravo veseli, da smo dobili tako mlada, a tako vješta zborovodju.” Anon., “Svečanost ‘Božićnjeg drvca’,” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 52 (22 December 1900): 4. 67 Božena Jelačić, 180 godina glazbenog školstva u Karlovcu 1804–1984 [180 Years of Music Education in Karlovac 1804-1984] (Karlovac: Muzička škola, 1984), 20. 187 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today lovac. The songs dedicated to the guest appearance of Ludmila Zadrobilkova stand out, in whose honour songs were published not only related to the concert in Karlovac, but also those in Đakovo and Osijek on tour of 1861/62.68 Occasional songs were also published for the performances of the violin virtuoso Nikola Dimitriev Svječin (1824 – around 1865), who held concerts in Karlovac on 7 April and 12 April 1862, and of Lavoslav/Leopold Aleksander Zellner (1823–1894),69 who performed in Karlovac 16 June 1864, as well as a song to Matilda Malinger on the occasion of her concert in Zagreb on 10 May 1862, with the aim of promoting singing in the vernacular. These songs bear witness to the enthusiasm that the artists caused with their performances during the cultural boom of the 1860s, which was extremely important for the development of civic culture, but also to the use of musical art for the purpose of promoting the national idea. A special category consists of those songs that were not created in conjunction with certain events, but with the published lyrics of the songs we find an invitation to set them to music. Such is, for example, the song “Veselo!” [Cheerfully], published in 1862 with the note: “We are asking the experts to create a melody for this song, it will be for their souls! ”70 The main role of encouraging the setting of verses to music was assumed from 1869 by the journal Vienac, which was started by Matica hrvatska [Matrix Croatica]. Advertisements Advertisements in Karlovac newspapers refer to the sale of instruments or serve as a more prominent invitation to an event. In the first case, it is about the sale or loan of instruments: piano, violin, cello. Sales are regularly advertised through newspaper editorial offices without information about the seller. Although such information is scant and sporadic, it points to the presence of a market for instruments and a certain degree of supply and demand of instruments in the city. Costume parties or costume dances, as well as raffle dances, are advertised during the carnival season, the goal of which was either to help the society that organized the party or some char-68 – g – n –, “Gospodični Mili Zadrobilkovoj,” Glasonoša 1, no. 20 (25 December 1861): 3; Juraj Tordinac [J. T-r-d-c], “Gospodični Mili Zadrobilkovoj Slava!,” Glasonoša 2, no. 26 (30 March 1862): 2; Ilija Okrugić Sriemac, “Vienac slave sto no ga dadè Slavonkinja vila.” 2, no. 27 (2 April 1862): 2. 69 Anon., “Zellner, Leopold Alexander,” Hrvatska enciklopedija, internet edition, https://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=67095. 70 Anon., “Molimo vještake, da nam napjev ovoj pjesmici stvore, bit će jim za dušu!,” Glasonoša 2, no. 45 (4 June 1862): 1. 188 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century ity purpose. Such costume dances [krabuljni plesovi] were announced in the hall of the inn “K gradu Zagrebu” [To the city of Zagreb] which in the 1860s, accompanied by the music of the “famous Slunj regiment,” ensured good service, food and drink. For charitable purposes, for example, on 1 February 1887, the Great Firemen’s Dance with a raffle was organized, the revenue of which went to the injured firefighters and their families.71 In this group we can also add Abel Lukšić’s initiative “Za Lisinskov spomenik” [For Lisinski’s monument] from 10 November 1861, in which he collected (in cooperation with the editorial office of the newspaper Pozor and the Zagreb Music Institute) and reported in detail on the donations received for the monument to the composer Vatroslav Lisinski (1819–1854).72 The initiative was guided by the saying “many a little makes a mickle [zrno po zrno - pogača]”. In the explanation, he nostalgically recalls the importance of Lisinski as the composer of the first Croatian operas Ljubav i zlo-ba and Porin, and his unfortunate fate, that is, his premature death. Lukšić writes: The duty of honesty commands every true patriot to place a monument on the grave of the singer of those beautiful songs, which will forev-er make it known that the motherland loves and respects its best sons, because it would be a shame for us if the resting place of this virtuoso would only be covered for even longer by a rot wooden cross and a sod.73 After the donations were collected in November 1862, the Music Institute undertook tasks related to the realization of the initiative and among the offers for the creation of the monument, they chose that of Franjo Solar, a merchant-ironworker.74 However, we also learn about further steps related to the monument: installation was delayed due to the delivery of materials (underlay marble from the Samobor region), and the installation was 71 Anon., “Sjajni vatrogasilački ples sa tombolom,” Sloga 2, no. 5 (30 January 1887): 3. 72 Anon., “Poziv [‘Za Lisinskog spomenik’],” Glasonoša 1, no. 7 (10 November 1861): 4. 73 “Dužnost poštenja nalaže svakomu pravomu domoljubu, da postavi pjevaču onih krasnih pjesamah na grob spomenik, koji na sve vieke obznanit imade, kako domovi-na svoje najbolje sinove ljubi i štuje, jer sramota bi bila za nas, da bi još duglje počiva-lište ovoga vrličine samo truli drveni križ i busen pokrivao.” Ibid. 74 Anon., “U posljednjoj sjednici glasbenog,” Glasonoša 2, no. 90 (8 November 1862): 2. On the installation of the monument, see: Franjo Ks. Kuhač, Vatroslav Lisinski i njegova doba. Prilog za poviest hrvatskoga preporoda [Vatroslav Lisinski and his Time. Contribution to History of the Croatian Revival], 2nd ed. (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1904), 133–6. On the repurpose of the monument to Franjo Krežma in 1893 cf. Anon., “Obnovljen spomenik Franji Krežmi na Mirogoju,” HaGeZe 16, no. 2 (2012): 1. 189 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today only announced in July 1863, when the text on both sides of the monument was published in Glasonoša,75 and in the end the monument was placed in the wrong place: Finally, I am telling you tragic-comic news. On the eve of All Souls’ Day, the youth used to always sing next to a grave in the local cemetery of St Roko, thinking that our famous deceased, the composer Vatroslav Lisinski, lies there. When it was time to put a monument to him, the committee in question instructed the entrepreneur to put a monument on that grave. When the monument had already been placed, Mr. J. said that it was the grave of his cousin, old Mrs Fuchs (Lisinski). This is prov-en to be true, so the monument had to be dismantled and placed on the right grave, which was not far away. Poor Lisinski – it just happened to him, as to Mozart, whose grave was sought for more than twenty years and found with great difficulty two or three years ago.76 Concluding remarks On the basis of the above preliminary research, newspaper articles about music prove to be extremely important for obtaining a picture of the cultural and musical life of the city of Karlovac in the nineteenth century, but also more broadly, given that we find reports from numerous other cities (and which sometimes complete the information we find in the other press). This picture can be created in all the more detail if we take into account the richness of Karlovac’s local press. Further research into other Croatian newspapers will certainly reveal more information about Karlovac’s musical life, especially in the period when no newspapers were published in Karlovac (1848–1860, 1866–1883). From the writing that we find in almost every issue of the newspaper, it follows that music was an important component of everyday life. Political changes as well as the social situ-75 Anon., “Iz Zagreba, dne 13. srpnja,” Glasonoša 3, no. 29 (19 July 1863): 1. 76 “Konačno vam javljam tragičko-komičku viest. U oči dušnoga dana običavala je mla-dež uviek pjevati uz njeki grob, na ovdješnjem groblju sv. Roka, misleć, da ondje naš slavni pokojnik, skladatelj Vatroslav Lisinski leži. Kad se je radilo o tom, da mu se stavi spomenik, naznači dotični odbor poduzetniku, da na taj grob stavi spomenik. Kad je već spomenik stavljen bio, javi se g. J., da je to grob njegove rodjakinje, stare gospo-je Fuchs (Lisinski). To se zbilja i dokaza, te se je s toga spomenik razložiti morao i sta-vio na pravi grob, koji je nedaleko bio. Siromah Lisinski, - njemu se je upravo zgadja-lo, kao i Mocartu, komu su rob do 20. godinah tražili i težkom mukom prije dvie, tri godine našli.” Anon., “U Zagrebu, u sobotu dne 8. kolovoza na večer,” Glasonoša 3, no. 32 (9 August 1863): 3. 190 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century ation were reflected through musical events (e. g. dances).77 Different types of articles (news, reports, reviews, criticism) about musical events reveal the whole spectrum of public, semi-public and even private events. Newspapers publish reports on the work of city societies which today (for various reasons) are often not preserved in the funds of these societies. In the Karlovac newspapers, there is often an overview of musical life within the framework of wider city themes, and this especially refers to the functioning of the singing society, music school and city music. The newspaper also proved to be an encourager of musical and literary creativity – especially in the period of Glasonoša newspaper owned by Abel Lukšić – by publishing composition competitions, publishing texts with an incentive to set them to music, as well as publishing occasional songs with concert performances by local and foreign musicians in Karlovac. Given the city’s proximity to Zagreb, as well as the entrepreneurship of the people of Karlovac, opportunities were many and the citizens of Karlovac were able to become acquainted with the current and diverse repertoire that developed the audience’s taste and raised the standard of requirements for quality performance. Bibliography Literature Ajanović-Malinar, Ivona. “Hauska, Oton.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2002. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=7322. 77 “Mimogred napomenuti ću ‘narodni ples’ što su ga ovdješnji slušatelji gospodarstva i šumarstva obdržavali. Već u subotu t. j. 15. o. m. u 7 satih nagrnuše mnogobrojna gospoda u dvoranu g. Č. Tud si imao šta vidjeti! Goleme promjene u to kratko vrieme! Pred trimi godinami sami ‘ frakaši’ a sada ‘surkaši’. Pred trimi godinami nisi se usu-dio sa prostim kaputom na ples doići, ako nisi prije pogledao, gdje su vrata i kud si prije uzišao. Da si u ono doba došao u surki, izsmjehavali bi te, te bi te držali za ‘Hotten-totta’ Pustimo to. [...] Koli milo godi i srdcu i duši, kad Ladina nožica posklizne po podu, plesajuć toli obljubljeno, hrvatsko-slavonsko kolo! ” [ By the way, I will mention the ‘national dance’ that the economy and forestry students here kept. Already on Saturday 15th of this month at 7 o’clock, numerous gentlemen rushed into the hall of Mr. Č. You had something to see there! Huge changes in that short time! Three years ago they were ‘ frakaši’ [tailcoat-wearer] and now they are ‘surkaši’ [surka-wearer]. Three years ago, you didn’t dare to come to the dance with a simple coat without first looking for where the door was and where you could leave. If you had come in a surka in those days, they would have laughed at you and thought you were a ‘Hottentott’. Let’s leave it at that. [...] It pleases both the heart and the soul when Lada’s foot slips on the floor, dancing to the loved Croatian-Slavonian kolo! ] V. R-č-I, “U Križevcih dne 16. velja- če,” Glasonoša 2, no. 17 (26 February 1862): 3. 191 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Anić, Ivana. “Kulturni život Karlovca u vrijeme Hrvatskog narodnog preporoda [The Cultural Life of Karlovac during the Croatian National Revival].” PhD diss., University of Zagreb, 2015. Anon. “Zellner, Leopold Alexander.” Hrvatska enciklopedija, internet edition, https://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=67095. Barbieri, Marija. “Draga Hauptfeld.” Leksikon opernih pjevača, 2013. https://opera. hr/index.php?p=article&id=2968. Blažeković, Zdravko. Glazba osjenjena politikom: studije o hrvatskoj glazbi između 17. i 19. Stoljeća [Music in the Shadow of Politics: Essays on Croatian Music between the 17th and 19th Centuries] . Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2002. Deset Zrinskih poputnicah za glasovir: glasbeni Zrinski pomenak tristogodišnjice sigetskog junaka Nikole Šubića Zrinskoga bana hrvatskoga slavljene na 6. 7. 8. i 9. rujna 1866. u Zagrebu. https://digitalna.nsk.hr /pb/?object=view&id=22052. Goldstein, Ivo, ed. “(Švarc; Naftali, Anton).” Židovski biografski leksikon, internet edition. https://zbl.lzmk.hr/?p=2115. Golec, Ivica, and Martina Kokolari. “Lžičar, Slavoljub.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, vol. 9, 217. Zagreb: LZMK, 2021. Grlović, Milan. Album zaslužnih Hrvata XIX. stoljeća, 2 vols. Zagreb: Matićev litografski zavod, 1900. Jelačić, Božena. 180 godina glazbenog školstva u Karlovcu 1804–1984 [180 Years of Music Education in Karlovac 1804–1984]. Karlovac: Muzička škola, 1984. Koblar, France. “Tomšič, Ljudevit.” Slovenska biografija, internet edition. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstveno raziskovalni center SAZU, 2013. https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba /sbi711854/. Kos, Koraljka. “Livadić, Ferdo.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2013. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=11868. Kuhač, Franjo Ks. Vatroslav Lisinski i njegova doba. Prilog za poviest hrvatskoga preporoda [Vatroslav Lisinski and his Time. Contribution to History of the Croatian Revival], 2nd ed. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1904. Lžičar, S. [Slavoljub]. Album hrvatskih napjeva: 100 hrvatskih narodnih napjeva za glasovir. Braunschweig: Henry Litolff’s Verlag, [1881]. Majer-Bobetko, Sanja. “Glazbena edukacija, reprodukcija, periodika i kritika u Hrvatskoj u drugoj polovici XIX. stoljeća [Music education, reproduction, periodicals and criticism in Croatia in the second half of the nineteenth century].” In Hrvatska i Europa: kultura, znanost i umjetnost, vol. 4: Moderna hrvatska kultura od preporoda do moderne (XIX. stoljeće), edited by M. Ježić, 649–53. Zagreb: HAZU, Školska knjiga, 2009. 192 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century Marošević, Grozdana. Glazba četiriju rijeka. Povijest glazbe Karlovačkog Pokuplja [Music of Four Rivers: History of Music of the Karlovačko Pokuplje Region] . Zagreb: IEF, HMD, 2010. Marošević, Grozdana, and Sanja Majer-Bobetko. “Kuhač, Franjo Ksaver.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2013. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak. aspx?id=10872. Miklaušić-Ćeran, Snježana. “Just, Vilim (Wilhelm).” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2005. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=9337. Miklaušić-Ćeran, Snježana. “Odrazi koncertnoga života Zagreba između 1826. i 1858. u zagrebačkim novinama i časopisima [The Reflections of Zagreb Concert Life between 1826 and 1858 in Zagreb Newspapers and Journals].” PhD diss, University of Zagreb, 2012. Ott, Ivan. “Hauptfeld, Dragutin.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2002. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=7313. Ott, Ivan, Draženka Polović, and Ljiljana Ščedrov. Pjesmom za dom. Prvo hrvatsko pjevačko društvo “Zora”, Karlovac 1858–2008. Karlovac: Gradsko kazalište Zorin dom, Grad Karlovac, 2008. Pleše, Branko. “Fabković, Skender.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 1998. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=5798. Pintar, Marijana. “Honsa, Dragutin.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 2002. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=7772. Radauš, Tatjana. “Accurti, Dragutin.” Hrvatski biografski leksikon, internet edition, 1983. https://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=283. Schneider, Marijana. “U Karlovcu 1840-ih [In Karlovac in the 1840s].” Zbornik Gradskog muzeja Karlovac, vol. 1, 65–77. Karlovac: Muzej grada Karlovca, 1964. Strohal, Rudolf. Grad Karlovac opisan i orisan [The town of Karlovac described and outlined]. Karlovac: Tisak M. Fogine, 1906. Ščedrov, Ljiljana, ed. Glazbom kroz povijest Karlovca [With Music through the History of Karlovac] . Karlovac: Glazbena škola Karlovac – Karlovačka županija, 1994. Tomašić, Silvija. “Hrvatska glazbena kritika na narodnom jeziku od 1854. do 1870. godine [Croatian music criticism in the vernacular from 1854 to 1870].” Graduate thesis, University of Zagreb, 1980. Vrbetić, Marija. “Novinstvo u Karlovcu 1841–1941 [Journalism in Karlovac 1841– 1941].” In Karlovac: 1579–1979, edited by Đuro Zatezalo, 303–28. Zagreb: Historijski arhiv u Karlovcu, 1979. Vrbetić, Marija, and Agneza Szabo. Karlovac na razmeđu stoljeća 1880–1914 [Karlovac at the turn of the century 1880–1914]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1989. 193 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Periodicals – g – n –. “Gospodični Mili Zadrobilkovoj.” Glasonoša 1, no. 20 (25 December 1861): 3. ***. “Dne 18. t. m. prispje nam u grad […].” Glasonoša 1, no. 19 (22 December 1861): 4. ***. “Koncert gospodične Mile Zadrobilkove.” Glasonoša 1, no. 20 (25 December 1861), 4. Anon. “Družtveni život.” Svjetlo 1, no. 8 (24 January 1884): 1–2. Anon. “Družtveni život [Social life].” Svjetlo 6, no. 46 (15 November 1891): 1. Anon. “Dvie tri o družtvih.” Karlovački viestnik 1, no. 3 (20 January 1866): 18–9. Anon. “Glasba.” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 48 (24 November 1900): 3. Anon. “Glasba u Karlovcu.” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 43 (20 October 1900): 3. Anon. “Glasbena škola.” Svjetlo 6, no. 41 (11 October 1891): 1–2. Anon. “Glasbena škola i partes adnexae.” Svjetlo 8, no. 47 (19 November 1893): 2. Anon. “Glasbene neprilike.” Svjetlo 7, no. 36 (4 September 1892): 2. Anon. “Gradska glasba.” Svjetlo 14, no. 10 (5 March 1899): 1. Anon. “Gradski proračun za godinu 1900.” Svjetlo 14, no. 40 (5 November 1899): 1. Anon. “Iz Karlovca. Naša glazbena škola.” Svjetlo 6, no. 33 (16 August 1891): 5. Anon. “Iz Zagreba, dne 13. srpnja.” Glasonoša 3, no. 29 (19 July 1863): 1. Anon. “Iz Zagreba. (Dobra kob. – Potreba. – Zabave u dvorani i streljani. – Koncert Ružice Haagenove.).” Glasonoša 3, no. 3 (18 January 1863): 2. Anon. “Izvješće o red. skupštini grad. zastupstva sl. i kr. grada Karlovca.” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 36 (1 September 1900): 3. Anon. “Javni izpit ovogradske glasbene škole.” Svjetlo 9, no. 26 (1 July 1894): 2–3. Anon. “Karlovačke pošurice.” Glasonoša 4, no. 4 (17 January 1864): 4. Anon. “Karlovačke pošurice.” Glasonoša 4, no. 18 (1 May 1864): 2–3. Anon. “Koncert gosp. Haagenove [Conccert of Mrs Haagen].” Glasonoša 3, no. 4 (25 January 1863): 2. Anon. “Koncert Jaroslava Kociana.” Svjetlo 20, no. 5 (31 January 1904): 3. Anon. “Koncert ‘Zore’.” Svjetlo 1, no. 2 (3 January 1884): 1. Anon. “Mala pitanja.” Svjetlo 14, no. 12 (19 March 1899): 1–2. Anon. “Molimo vještake, da nam napjev ovoj pjesmici stvore, bit će jim za dušu!” Glasonoša 2, no. 45 (4 June 1862): 1. Anon. “Nagrada napjeva za pjesmu ‘Slava mladosti’ od I. T.” Glasonoša 2, no. 24 (23 March 1862): 4. Anon. “Natječaj.” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 30 (22 July 1900): 4. 194 music in the karlovac press in the nineteenth century Anon. “Natječaj (za poputnicu Zrinjskoga.).” Karlovački viestnik 1, no. 33 (18 August 1866): 263–4. Anon. “Natječaj za napjev pjesmi ‘Bože živi’ od P. P.” Zatočnik 2, no. 54 (8 March 1870): 3. Anon. “Obnovljen spomenik Franji Krežmi na Mirogoju.” HaGeZe 16, no. 2 (2012): 1. Anon. “Osnova pravila glasbene škole”. Svjetlo 6, no. 44 (1 November 1891): 3; Svjetlo 6, no. 45 (8 November 1891): 3; Svjetlo 6, no. 46 (15 November 1891): 3; Svjetlo 6, no. 47 (22 November 1891): 2; Svjetlo 6, no. 48 (29 November 1891): 2. Anon. “Poziv [‘Za Lisinskog spomenik’].” Glasonoša 1, no. 7 (10 November 1861): 4. Anon. “Prošle sriede sretno nam prispje.” Glasonoša 2, no. 10 (2 February 1862): 6. Anon. “Sjajni vatrogasilački ples sa tombolom.” Sloga 2, no. 5 (30 January 1887): 3. Anon. “Slava mladosti.” Glasonoša 2, no. 5, special supplement (15 January 1862). Anon. “Soirée Türk.” Svjetlo 3, no. 5 (30 January 1886): 3. Anon. “Svečanost ‘Božićnjeg drvca’.” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 52 (22 December 1900): 4. Anon. “U posljednjoj sjednici glasbenog.” Glasonoša 2, no. 90 (8 November 1862): 2. Anon. “U Zagrebu, u sobotu dne 8. kolovoza na večer.” Glasonoša 3, no. 32 (9 August 1863): 3. Anon. “Učiteljem glasbe.” Karlovački glasnik 2, no. 36 (1 September 1900): 3. Anon. “Veselo!” Glasonoša 2, no. 45 (4 June 1862): 1. D. L. “Šaljivi koncert ‘Zore’.” Sloga 2, no. 7 (13 February 1887): 3. Gradina. “Glasbena učiona.” Sloga 2, no. 3 (16 January 1887): 2. Gradina. “Glasbena učiona II.” Sloga 2, no. 4 (23 January 1887): 1–2. Gradina. “Glasbena učiona III.” Sloga 2, no. 5 (30 January 1887): 1–2. Gradina. “Glasbena učiona IV.” Sloga 2, no. 6 (6 February 1887): 1–2. Klarić, Gjuro. “Karlovačko pjevačko družtvo.” Karlovački viestnik 1, no. 2 (13 January 1866): 9–10. Kos, Koraljka. Dora Pejačević. Zagreb: JAZU, Muzikološki zavod Muzičke akademije, 1982. Kursar, Vjeran. “Hrvati u gradu na Bosporu: hrvatsko iseljeništvo u osmanskoj prijestolnici Istanbulu u dugom 19. Stoljeću.” Hrvatska revija, no. 4 (2013). https://www.matica.hr/hr/399/hrvati-u-gradu-na-bosporu-22748/. Lukšić, Abel. “Molba na sl. pjevačka družtva i gospodu skladatelje glasbe.” Glasonoša 3, no. 22 (31 May 1863): 1–2. Majer-Bobetko, Sanja. “Nikola Šubić Zrinski i Sigetska bitka kao skladateljska inspiracija [Nikola Šubić Zrinski and the Batlle of Siget as a Compos-195 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today er’s Inspiration].” Hrvatska revija, no. 4 (2017). https://www.matica.hr/hr/531 /nikola-subic-zrinski-i-sigetska-bitka-kao-skladateljska-inspiracija-27473/. Markuševski, Olga. “Još nekoliko napomena o Lukšiću [A few more notes about Lukšić].” Kaj 11, no. 4 (1979): 53–5. Okrugić Sriemac, Ilija. “Vienac slave sto no ga dadè Slavonkinja vila.” Glasonoša 2, no. 27 (2 April 1862): 2. Ott, Ivo. “Dušan Lopašić, novinar i publicist [Dušan Lopašić, journalist and publicist].” Kaj 11, no. 4 (1979): 61–6. Tordinac, Juraj [J. T-r-d-c]. “Gospodični Mili Zadrobilkovoj Slava!” Glasonoša 2, no. 26 (30 March 1862): 2. V. R-č-I. “U Križevcih dne 16. Veljače.” Glasonoša 2, no. 17 (26 February 1862): 3. Vrbetić, Marija. “Kronika glazbenog života Karlovca od 1884. do 1904. godine [Chronicle of the musical life of Karlovac from 1884 to 1904].” Zvuk, no. 2 (1964): 50–9. Vrbetić, Marija. “Djelovanje Abela Lukšića šezdesetih godina prošlog stoljeća [Activities of Abel Lukšić in the sixties of the last century].” Kaj 11, no. 4 (1979): 47–51. Zupančić, Maruša. “The Influx of Bohemian Violinists to Slovenia and Croatia up to the 1920s.” Arti musices 50, no. 1–2 (2019): 259–300. 196 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.197-208 Musikjournalismus vs. Musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? Luba Kijanovska and Lidiya Melnyk Univerza v Lvovu Universität Lwiw Das erste Forschungsdesiderat des vorgelegten Beitrages ist die bereits vor ein paar Jahren anhand historischer Beispiele wie auch aktueller Situation entwickelte Typologie der drei grundlegenden Arten von Kommunikatoren im Musikjournalismus und der Musikkritik. Dabei wird als musikjournalistische Darstellung jeder Text definiert, in welchem die Beziehungen zwischen Musik und Gesellschaft thematisiert wird. „ Als ‚Musikjournalismus‘ gilt jede beschreibende, analysierende oder bewertende Berichterstattung über musikalisches Geschehen und seine Zusammenhänge in Massenmedien“,1 behauptete auch Gunter Reus. In weiterer Perspektive darf Musikjournalismus als ein den unentbehrlichen Bestandteilen des Kulturjournalismus betrachtet werden und trägt alle spezifischen Merkmale dieses Berufsfeldes. Der Musikjournalismus weist sich als eine Form der Massenkommunikation aus, mit welcher über Massenmedien auf ein großes heterogenes, anonymes Auditorium gezielt wird und die alle wichtigsten kommunikativen Funktionen erfüllen kann. Darüber hinaus ist in diesem Kontext der Begriff „Musikkritik“ nicht mit dem Musikjournalismus zu synonimisieren, was bis heute viel zu oft leider vorkommt: Ob der Vergleich zwischen Musikkritik und Musikjournalismus überhaupt methodologisch korrekt ist, lässt sich noch diskutie-1 Gunter Reus, „Musikjournalismus – Ergebnisse aus der wissenschaftlichen Forschung“, in Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Musik und Medien, Hrsg. Stefan Weinacht, Helmut Scherer (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008), 85. 197 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ren, da es im ersten Fall eher um die Denkweise und den Inhalt handelt und im zweiten hingegen um die Form. Die wichtigste Signifikanz der Musikkritik besteht aus den urteilen-den (analysierenden oder bewertenden) Komponenten. Auch ihre Haupt-aufgabe ist, im Gegensatz zum Musikjournalismus, nicht informieren, sondern analysieren. In häufigen Fällen findet die Musikkritik ihre publizistische Realisierung in Massenmedien, und wird bei dieser Begebenheit zum Instrument des Musikjournalismus. T. W. Adorno behauptete zwar, daß Musikkritik nicht, wie es vielfach erscheint, bloßes Mittel der Kommunikation ist [. .]. Vielmehr ist Musikkritik, wenn man ihren Begriff ernst nimmt, und es allerdings gilt für jegliche Kritik von Kunstwerken und ihrer Darbietung, eine eigene Form, kein bloßes Mittel,2 klärte aber mit diesen Feststellungen die grundsätzliche standortbe-stimmende Frage nicht, sondern führte eher zu weiterer Verwirrung. Nicht zufällig dementierte schon Gerd Schönfelder die rein formelle Betrach-tungsweise der Musikkritik, und stellte fest, dass überhaupt besteht unter Musikkritikern nur wenig Klarheit drüber, wie ihre Berufsausübung letztlich geartet ist [. .]. Die Anhäufung musikwis-senschaftlicher Disziplinen unter der Rubrik Musikkritik verheißt da auch keinen Ausweg.3 Die manche Forscher asserieren die Doppelnatur von Musikkritik, die Horst Seeger zufolge umfasst in ihrer Form den gesamten Bereich publizistischer Äußerungen über Musik (publizistisch – das heißt hier: über den musikwissen-schaftlichen oder musiktheoretischen Fachkreis hinausgehend an das Publikum der Musik gewandt), sei er gedruckter, gesprochener, filmi-scher oder sonstiger Art. Inhaltlich stellt sich Musikkritik die Aufgabe, die Beziehungen zwischen dem Musik Schaffenden und dem Musik Aufnehmenden herzustellen und unter kulturpolitischem Aspekt regelnd zu entwickeln.4 2 Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, „Reflexionen über Musikkritik“, in Symposion für Musikkritik, Studien zur Wertungsforschung, Hrsg. Harald Kaufmann (Graz: Styria, 1968), 7f. 3 Gerd Schönfelder, Zu Theorie und Praxis der Musikkritik (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1982), 59f. 4 Horst Seeger, Hrsg., Der kritische Musikus: Musikkritiken aus drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: Reclam, 1966), 7. 198 musikjournalismus vs. musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? Auch amerikanischer Wissenschaftler Robert D. Schick behauptet, „ critic are subject to pressures from a variety of sources, including letters from the general public and from composers“5 und Mathias O. C. Döpfner resümierte trefflich, Musikkritik sei „ im Doppelten Sinne Diskussionsgegen-stand – als musikalisches Urteil und als Typus an sich“.6 Schon Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts schlug der berühmte deutsche Theoretiker und Komponist Herbert Eimert vor, man solle von der Definition „Musikkritiker“ generell zu verzichten: Aus den Polizei- und Hotelmeldungen dürfte die Berufsbezeichnung „Musikkritiker“ nahezu verschwunden sein, nicht nur, weil der Kritiker entweder sein Metier nebenher ausübt oder im günstigsten Falle Re-daktionsbeamter geworden ist und sich dann als Pressevertreter, Redakteur, Schriftleiter oder Journalist bezeichnet, sondern auch, weil das empfindlichere Sprachgefühl das Unangemessene herausspürt, das sich mit dem Wort in seiner eigentlichen Bedeutung verbindet.7 Bewusst oder unbewusst offenbart Eimert in seiner etwas spottender Argumentation eine von ewigen Kernfragen der Musikkritik: ob jeder, der über Musik schreibt, kann als der Kritiker genannt werden? Ist es nicht die höchste Zeit, diese Definition und dabei auch die Grenzen der Konzepte zu erweitern? Die Ideen von Herbert Eimert setzt teileweise Werner Braun in seinem Buch „ Musikkritik: Versuch einer historisch-kritischen Standortbestimmung“8 fort, indem er drei wichtigsten Typen von Musikkritiker (Kritiker, Rezensent und Referent sowie Musikschriftsteller) zu definieren versucht9. Es ist symptomatisch, dass keiner von solchen als „Journalist“ bezeichnet ist, obwohl jeder doch die Attitüden des Faches trägt. Auch Matthias Döpfner unterscheidet nur zwei Typen von Kritikern – der Literat und der Musiker. Der erste als „musikkundiger Journalist“ hat den Beruf aus Liebe zum geschriebenen Wort, aus Faszination am Wesen der Presse ergriffen. Seine schreibende Tätigkeit gilt hauptsächlich 5 Robert D. Schick, Classical Music Criticism [=Perspectives in Music Criticism and Theory, Vol. 2] (New York: Routledge, 1996), 52. 6 Mathias O. C. Döpfner, Musikkritik in Deutschland nach 1945: inhaltliche und formale Tendenzen; eine kritische Analyse (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1991), 13. 7 Herbert Eimert, „Zur Kritik“, Melos, Nr. 20 (1953): 206. 8 Werner Braun, Musikkritik: Versuch einer historisch-kritischen Standortbestimmung (Köln: Musikverlag Hans Gerig, 1972). 9 Ibid., 27. 199 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today oder ausschließlich der Musik, die er sich irgendwann als favorisiertes Sujet gewählt hat (oder die ihm als Sujet zugewiesen wurde). Musikalisches Hintergrundwesen hat er sich entweder durch in musikwissen-schaftliches Studium oder durch persönliche Hör- und Leseerfahrung erarbeitet. Praktische Musikerfahrungen produktiver oder reproduktiver Art sind möglich, aber nicht zwingend. Sein Hauptinteresse gilt der geschriebenen Sprache, dementsprechend verwendet er große Sorgfalt auf einzelne Formulierungen, einen ausgefeilten, seiner persönlichen Verbal-Ästhetik entsprechenden Stil, um als ebenso gewissenhafter wie virtuoser Autor erkannt und anerkannt zu werden. Musik, sosehr er sie kennen und schätzen mag, dient ihn letztens hauptsächlich als Mittel zum Zweck verbaler Darstellung.10 Hingegen, der zweite von Döpfner hervorgehobenen Typ ist eher ein schreibkundiger Musiker, der zum gewissen Zeitpunkt die Enge seiner Fachsparte begriff und zu deren Erweiterung neigte: Der schreibkundiger Instrumentalist oder Komponist begreift sich in erster Linie als Musiker. Er hat den Beruf aus Liebe am Musizieren oder Komponieren, das er selbst einmal aktiv betrieben hat, gewählt. Der Kritiker-Profession geht er oft nach, weil die Erkenntnis eigener Leistungs- und Karriere-Grenzen als Instrumentalist oder Komponist einen Berufswechsel nahgelegt hat. Mit gewissen verbalen Fähigkeiten begabt, hat er auf diese Weise die Möglichkeit, sich weiter mit Musik zu beschäftigen und obendrein auf Rezeptionstendenzen Einfluss zu nehmen. Musikalische Kompetenz schöpft er aus praktischen Erfahrungen, das sprachlich-stilistische Rüstzeug erwirbt er in wesentlichen durch Lesen anderer Rezensionen. Formulierungen und Stilfragen sind für ihn von sekundärer Bedeutung. Ihm geht es darum, als kompetenter Musikkenner vor allem in Musikerkreisen geschätzt zu werden. Sprache, sosehr sich sein Sensorium dafür im Laufe seiner Arbeit geschärft haben mag, dient ihm letztens hauptsächlich als Mittel, um weiterhin am Musikleben zu partizipieren.11 Dieter Heß schlägt eine allgemein für Kulturjournalisten gültig und je nach Spezialisierungsgrad differenzierte Typologie, unter die wie folgend zu unterscheiden sind: Kulturjournalistische Spezialisten [. .] besitzen intensive Kenntnisse in einzelnen Kulturbereichen und sind häufig eigens als Film-, Kunst-, Musik-, Theater- oder Literaturkritiker die Kultur-Fachzeitschriften 10 Döpfner, Musikkritik in Deutschland, 80. 11 Ibid. 200 musikjournalismus vs. musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? oder in Feuilleton-Redaktionen größerer Tages- und Wochenzeitungen festangestellt; als freie Mitarbeiter arbeiteten sie für alle Medientypen. [...] Kulturjournalistische Generalisten, die über breitere kulturelle Interessen und Kompetenzen verfügen, sind oft als festangestellte Redakteure die den Rundfunkanstalten sowie in kleineren Feuilleton-Redaktionen der Tageszeitungen tätig. [...] Journalistische Generalisten, die über Kulturthemen berichten, ohne jedoch spezifische Kultur-Kompetenzen zu besitzen, findet man vor allem in den Lokalredaktionen kleiner und mittlerer Tageszeitungen sowie bei den privaten Lokalradios.12 In allgemeinen erscheinen aber alle erwähnten Typologieversuche nicht allumfassend. In Fortsetzung den oben angeführten Klassifikationen, sowie aus eigener langjährigen so theoretischen, wie auch praktischen Erfahrung scheint es zweckmäßig eine eigene Typologie einzuführen. Typ 1. „Hanslick“. Dieser Typ ist nach einflussreichstem Musikkritiker des 19. Jhr. genannt, Eduard Hanslick (1825–1904), der auch als Autor eines der ersten musikästhetischen Schriften „ Vom Musikalisch-Schönen. Ein Beitrag zur Revision der Ästhetik der Tonkunst“ (1854) und heftigste Antago-nist Richard Wagners bekannt war. Die Forscher späteren Zeiten behaupten, Hanslick, der seit 1864 für Neue Freie Presse in Wien tätig war, könnte man sogar als Vater des Musikjournalismus nennen, hätte er nicht die Ein-seitigkeit zu Wagner und Brahms gezeigt haben und nicht so viel Subjektives in der Musikkritik beigetragen zu haben. Nicht zufällig spricht auch Lutz Lesle in seine Studie „ Der Musikkritiker: Gutachter oder Animateur“ von ganzer Generation der Musikkritiker, die von „Hanslick-Syndrom“ be-troffen sind13 und Gunter Reus zu Recht behauptet, „ für die Fachwelt gewiss wünschenswert, muss man ihn [Hanslicks Beitrag in Musikjournalismus] feuil etonhistorisch als Schritt zurück werten“ mit seinem „ Schwanken zwischen Metapher und Terminus“.14 12 Dieter Heß, Hrsg., Kulturjournalismus. Ein Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis (München-Leipzig: List, 1992), 22. 13 Lutz Lesle, Der Musikkritiker - Gutachter oder Animateur?: Aspekte einer publikums-pädagogischen Handlungstheorie der Musikpublizistik (Hamburg: Verlag der Musikalienhandlung Karl D. Wagner, 1984), 45. 14 Reus, Musikjournalismus, 321f. 201 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Der „Hanslick-Typ“ von Kommunikatoren ist auch heute gut bekannt. Es sind meistens die Autoren, die über fundierte Kenntnisse bzw. Fach-ausbildung in Bereich Musikwissenschaft verfügen. Ihre Texte sind auf gründliche Analyse des angegebenen Themas gezielt und oft von der spezifischen Fachterminologie überladen. Auch die Darstellungsformauswahl ist meistens zur Rezension beschränkt. Zu Vorteilen dieses Kommunikatorentyps gehören Kompetenz, komparative Fähigkeiten und solide Wissen, die Nachteilen sind besonders in alltäglichem massenmedialem Betrieb bemerkbar: „Hanslick“ orientiert sich selten, wenn auch überhaupt, auf relativ große und anonyme Rezipientenschar. Auch die handwerkliche journalistische „Kleinigkeiten“ wie angegebene Textgröße oder feste Re-daktionsschlusszeiten sind ihm oft zu bedeutungslos, um darüber zu kümmern. Ferner beherrscht der „Hanslick“ meistens kaum das journalistische Instrumentarium, auch in Interview schenkt er sich selber mehr Beachtung als seinem Gesprächspartner. Typische „Hanslick“-Ansagen beinhalten oft das Personalpronomen „Ich“ und sind von gewisser Subjektivität geprägt. „Hanslick“ bleibt bis heute den Geboten der „höhen“ Musikkritik treu, wenn auch sein Publikum in Massenmedien je weiter, desto knapper wird. Dieser Typ trifft man am häufigsten unter den „kulturjournalistischen Spezialisten“ (Heß) oder „fachkundigen Musikern“ (Döpfner), die in der ersten Reihe sich auszuschreiben versuchen und weniger um Leserschaft sich kümmern. Darüber hinaus neigt der zweite Typ der Kommunikatoren im Musikjournalismus, den man als „Rel stab“ bezeichnen kann, zur gewissen Affinität zwischen musikkritischen und rein journalistischen Antrieben. Dem Vater Johann Karl (1759–1813) und besonders dem Sohn Ludwig Rellstab hat Musikjournalismus in der Tagespresse seinen Anfängen zu verdanken: Johann Karl war vom 1806 bis zu seinem Todesjahr bei der „Vossischen Zeitung“ tätig, Ludwig Rellstab übernahm sein Dienst in 1826. Obwohl auch er nicht immer von subjektiven Urteilen frei war, was z. B. Robert Schumann dazu veranlasste, ihm als „ Rel stab, der Philister par excel ence“15 zu bezeichnen, übte Rellstab seine alltägliche journalistische Tätigkeit meistens gekonnt und routiniert. Auch Reus behauptet, dass gerade dank Ludwig Rellstab etablierte sich Musikjournalismus in der Tagespresse16. Alleine die Idee, ein neues Klavierwerk von geradezu populär gewordenem Komponisten als „Mondscheinsonate“ zu bezeichnen kann man heute nicht an-15 Gustav Jansen, Die Davidsbündler (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1883), 192. 16 Reus, Musikjournalismus, 316f. 202 musikjournalismus vs. musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? ders als treffliches PR-Kniff betrachten. Zudem ist wichtig zu bemerken, daß Rellstab nur musikalische Grundausbildung bekam und sich selber vor allem als Schriftsteller geglaubt hat. Heutige „Rellstäbe“ beherrschen oft vor allem journalistisches Handwerk, sind aber oft nach persönlicher Neigung oder Ausbildung der Musik nicht fremd. Gerade die bezeichnet Döpfner als „musikkundigen Journalisten“ Sie üben meistens sog. „Kulturjournalismus“, also sind auch in anderen Themen kompetent (kulturjournalistische Generalisten nach Heß), spezialisieren sich aber vor allem in dem Schwerpunkt Musik und sam-meln dementsprechende Erfahrungen und Kontakte. Kommunikatorentyp „Rellstab“ kann nicht nur eine Rezension verfassen, sondern auch einfühl-same Reportage oder sogar meisterhafte Investigation zu musikverbunde-nen Themen, die aber in der ersten Linie von sozialer oder wirtschaftlicher Relevanz sind. Der dritte Typ, der auch leider ziemlich oft in Massenmedien zu beobachten ist, beschloss ich als „Beckmesser“ zu bezeichnen. Es etablierte sich eigentlich schon seit langem in der deutschen Tradition, kleinli-che und allzu pedantische Kritiker nach dem Meistersinger und Schreiber Sixtus Beckmesser in Richard Wagners Oper Die Meistersinger von Nürn-berg zu nennen. Sogar der Begriff der Beckmesserei gilt bis heute in deutsche Sprache als Metapher für beflissene und engstirnige Regelgläubigkeit. Im Kontext der vorgeschlagenen Typologie wird „Beckmesser“ ferner die Journalisten bezeichnen, die fast ausschließlich ihre redaktionellen Pflich-ten üben, oft ohne gewisse Neigung und weiteren Kenntnissen. Es ist anzunehmen, dass heutigen Beckmessern bestimmte z.B. Heß als „journalistischen Generalisten“ meistens in Lokalzeitungen, was aber in der Tat nicht immer zurecht ist: auch die lokalen Tageszeitungen können, ja nach Glückstreff, der hochkompetenten Rezensenten besitzen, und die großen überregionalen Medien haben nichtsdestoweniger „Beckmesse-reien“, die oft zu der ganzen Reihe peinlichen Fehler und fachlich unkundigen Aussagen fügte. In besserem Fall rufen diese Kommunikatoren die von anderen verfassten Quellen ab, schlimmstenfalls behaupten sie, eigene Urteile verfassen zu können, die aber nicht fehlerfrei sind. Über gewisse historische Abstände und Umstände hinaus kann diese Typologie relativ umfassend erscheinen. Es stehen aber ein paar Herausforderungen bevor, die eine weiter Kalibrierung und Revidierung fordern. Die erste, zu der wir heute sicher schon alleine durch den Zeitman-gel nicht mehr kommen, ist die heutige Forderung nach Crossmedialität, 203 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today die die obenerwähnten Typen eigentlich vernichtet bzw. in den ganz neuen Umständen versetzt. Die andere wollen wir heute noch unbedingt thematisieren, und das sind die politischen Wandlungen: wie funktioniert der Musikjournalismus unter totalitären Mächten? Inwieweit ist Objektivität, der Musikkritik höchste Gebot, mit der Propaganda kompatibel? Wohin gehören die Musikjournalisten in den schwierigen Zeiten historischer Kataklysmen? Die oben identifizierten symbolischen Typen von Musikjournalisten betonen in erster Linie die individuellen und professionellen Merkmale dieser Art von Tätigkeit. Nichtsdestoweniger wichtig ist aber auch auf einen anderen Aspekt des Problems konzentrieren: die gesellschaftspoli-tischen Funktionen des Musikjournalismus. So wichtig die persönlichen Psychogramme der Autoren der unterschiedlichen Texte über Musik auch waren, über ihr Schicksal auf den Seiten der gedruckten Ausgabe entschied letztlich die Redaktionspolitik. Zunächst achtete sie auf die Übereinstim-mung ihres Inhalts und ihrer Ausdrucksweise mit den Anforderungen der Gesellschaft: sei es mit der „Generallinie der Partei“ in einer totalitären Gesellschaft oder mit den musikalischen Interessen der freidenken Leserschaft der westlichen Welt. Nachdem ich vierzig Jahre lang die Gelegenheit hatte, regelmäßig mit verschiedenen ukrainischen Medien freiberuflich zu-sammenzuarbeiten, kann ich drei wesentliche historische Stationen im Verhältnis „Gesellschaft – Musikjournalismus“ zusammenfassen, die sich in dieser Zeit großen historischen Wandlungen veränderten und sowohl die Thematik als auch den Stil der Texte über Musik unmittelbar beeinflussten. Die erste historische Stufe war von totalitärer Propaganda der spät-kommunistischen Periode beeinflusst, mit entsprechender Interpretation der Aufgaben von Musikkritik und Publizistik. Wie jede andere Form der Reaktion auf künstlerische Ereignisse nahm sie alle Zeichen eines ideologisch motivierten Massakers an „Dissidenten“ an und zerstörte systema-tisch „bürgerliche Relikte der Vergangenheit“, „Kirchentum“, „Nationalismus“, „Verbeugung vor dem Westen“, „totgeborene Avantgarde“ und andere musikalische Phänomene, die für ein „gesundes proletarisches Bewusstsein“ ebenso ungeeignet waren. Sicherlich dachten nicht alle Kritiker, wie sie schrieben; andere hatten oft keine sehr genaue Vorstellung davon, worü- ber sie schrieben, und wandten einfach ideologische Standardklischees auf das an, was ihnen auf die Anweisungen von „oben“ zu zerstören befohlen wurde. Für solche Autoren würde ich einen weiteren Typ in obiger Klassifikation vorschlagen, den man auch metaphorisch als „Münchhausen“ nen-204 musikjournalismus vs. musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? nen darf. In ihrer Darstellung sind die Beschreibung und Bewertung eines bestimmten musikalischen Phänomens im Allgemeinen frei von objekti-ven Kriterien, sind es aber das Produkt reiner Fantasie über ideologische Themen, die praktisch keinen Bezug zur Realität hatten. Einige der gewis-senhafteren Kritiker und Musikjournalisten können jedoch immer noch als „Hanslicks“ eingestuft werden, da sie sich irgendwie an die Anforderungen der einschlägigen Leitungsgremien angepasst und sogar gelernt haben, in der äsopischen Sprache zu schreiben, damit sie, abgesehen von den not-wendigen Verbeugungen, mithalten können die kommunistischen Kunst-ideale drückten sie vollkommen professionell und innerhalb der Grenzen möglicher objektiver Urteile aus. Trotzdem blieben Musikkritik und Journalismus in erster Linie ein Werkzeug der ideologischen Beeinflussung der Gesellschaft, und ihr Lexikon war meist von den elementaren Anforderungen der Medienkultur sehr weit entfernt. Die Formulierungen glichen Gerichtsurteilen. So sahen die Aufgaben der Musikkritik in der Ukraine im Jahr 1972 aus: Im Januar dieses Jahres verabschiedete das Zentralkomitee der KPdSU die Resolution „Über die Literatur- und Kunstkritik“, in der es eine tief-greifende Einschätzung ihres Zustandes gab die aktuelle Phase skizziert Wege zur grundlegenden Verbesserung. Die in der Entschließung auf-gedeckten erheblichen Mängel dieser Art von kreativer Tätigkeit sind auch charakteristisch für die ukrainische sowjetische Musikkritik .. Es werden helle, gut argumentierte Materialien benötigt, die das anti-humanistische Wesen hässlicher Produkte der bürgerlichen Kunst mit Hilfe von entlarven die die internationale Reaktion versucht, das Sow-jetvolk mit einer uns feindlichen Ideologie zu vergiften.17 Die zweite Stufe kommt mit der Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine im Jahr 1991 und brachte sowohl in der Kunst selbst als auch in kritischen Bewer-tungen und Reaktionen darauf eine Welle der Euphorie, die durch das Recht auf Wiederbelebung dessen ausgelöst wurde, was zuvor nur geflüstert werden konnte. Es wurde endlich offiziell erlaubt, die Ereignisse des Musiklebens und die Kreativität des Komponisten zu bewerten, ohne auf die Anweisungen des Parteikomitees zurückzublicken, und frei mit der ganzen Welt zu kommunizieren. Es hat den Stil musikkritischer Artikel und journalistischer Beiträge wirklich radikal verändert. In den kritischen 17 Sophia Grytsa, „Актуальні завдання музичної критики [Aktuelle Aufgaben der Musikkritik]“, Muzyka, Nr. 2 (1972): 2. 205 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Rezensionen und Rezensionen der frühen 1990er-Jahre herrscht eine ganz andere inhaltlich-emotionale Dominanz vor: Das erste internationale Festival „Music Dialogues“ in Kiew ... Die Programme der Abende wurden nach dem Prinzip des Dialogs aufgebaut. Im ersten Abschnitt wurde ukrainische Kammermusik aufgeführt, im zweiten Abschnitt ausländische Musik. Es fanden sieben Abende statt, die unsere Vorstellung von moderner Kammermusik bereicher-ten und bewiesen, dass die ukrainische Musik auch das Niveau europäischer Samples erreicht. Dieses Prinzip, die Werke zweier Völker in einem Konzert zu vereinen, gab [. .] Anlass, über die Kompositionstech-nik nachzudenken, über die Bereitschaft unserer Zuhörer, Avantgarde-Musik wahrzunehmen, über die Notwendigkeit, bei jedem künstlerischen Phänomen Augenmaß zu haben.18 In den ersten Jahren des Bestehens des unabhängigen ukrainischen Staates kann man den beispiellosen Aufstieg des Musiklebens selbst und dementsprechend seine Reflexion auf den Seiten der Fach- und allgemeinen Presse beobachten. Es erscheinen dutzende von Neuausgaben, die zuvor verschwiegene künstlerische Probleme aktiv diskutieren; die Namen verbotener Komponisten und Interpreten kehren ins Informationsraum zurück. Doch ziemlich schnell wird die Freiheit der Themenauswahl aus dem musikalischen Bereich und der Art und Weise, wie sie in der Presse prä- sentiert werden, durch Freizügigkeit und Entgrenzung ersetzt, hinter der eine korrekte und professionelle Einschätzung musikalischer (und anderer kultureller) Ereignisse verschwindet. Nach und nach verschwinden die qualitativen Zeitungen und Zeitschriften, in denen die Kunst umfassend und ausgewogen behandelt wurde. Stattdessen nimmt Kommerzialisierung und Boulevardklatsch. Einige qualitative Medien, – darunter die Zeitschrift „Krytyka“ oder die Zeitung „Dzerkalo Tyzhnia“ – blieben eher die Ausnahme, die nur die Regel bestätigte. Mit dem Aufkommen des Zeitalters des Internets und zahlreicher sozialer Netzwerke – vom sgn. Crossmedialität war heute schon die Rede - ändert sich die Situation im Allgemeinen nicht, sondern erwirbt nun die neuen Formen. Musikkritik und -Journalismus bewegen sich weiter wie ein Schiff ohne Ruder und Segel, in eine nicht näher definierte Richtung, wo ein paar „Hanslicks“ verwaist in einer Ecke stehen, aber die „Beckmessers“ mit voller Stimme ihren Sieg rufen. 18 Eduard Yavorskyy, „Діалоги дружби [Friedensdialogen]“, Muzyka, Nr. 5 (1993): 3. 206 musikjournalismus vs. musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? Ein radikaler Wendepunkt kam nach dem 24. Februar 2022. Plötzlich tauchte die Musikkultur und ihre gesamte umfangreiche Infrastruktur, einschließlich des Schreibens über Musik, an der Front des Informationskrieges auf. Das Problem der musikalischen Selbstidentifizierung, das weit über die Grenzen eines rein künstlerischen Umfelds hinausging, wurde wieder aktualisiert. Eine beredte Bestätigung dafür war ein heftiger Konflikt zwischen Anhängern und Gegnern des Namens Pjotr Tschaikowski an der Kiewer Nationalen Musikakademie, der von Dutzenden von Veröffentlichungen in verschiedenen Publikationen begleitet wurde und eine heftige Reaktion der Menschen auch weit entfernt von der Musik her-vorrief. Es war dringend notwendig, das historische Gedächtnis zu aktua-lisieren, was dazu führte, dass Komponisten und Interpreten - Opfer des kommunistischen Terrors, wie Mykola Leontovych, Vasyl Barvinskyi oder Wolodymyr Ivasyuk – wieder zu beliebten Medienfiguren wurden. Diese dritte historische Wendung erfordert auch dringend völlig andere Herangehensweisen und die Lösung einer Reihe neuer Aufgaben: Welche journalistischen Darstellungsformen sind wieder für die Vermittlung größeren Themen aus dem Bereich Musikgeschichte geeignet? Welche Texte sollten in Fremdsprachen erscheinen, um ausländische Rezipienten, die sich für die ukrainische Musikkultur der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart plötzlich so massenhaft interessieren, mit den Informationen zu versorgen? Es scheint, als ob in diesem Wendepunkt der Weltgeschichte nicht nur die ukrainische Musikkritik und der Journalismus, sondern auch das Wort über Musik in globaler Dimension ganz andere Aufgaben und Ziele be-kommen, die wir verstehen und realisieren müssen. Bibliographie Literatur Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund. „Reflexionen über Musikkritik“. In Symposion für Musikkritik, Studien zur Wertungsforschung, hrsg. von Harald Kaufmann, 7–21. Graz: Styria, 1968. Braun, Werner. Musikkritik: Versuch einer historisch-kritischen Standortbestimmung. Köln: Musikverlag Hans Gerig, 1972. Döpfner, Mathias O. C. Musikkritik in Deutschland nach 1945: inhaltliche und formale Tendenzen; eine kritische Analyse. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1991. Heß, Dieter, Hrsg. Kulturjournalismus. Ein Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis. München-Leipzig: List, 1992. Jansen, Gustav. Die Davidsbündler. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1883. 207 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Lesle, Lutz. Der Musikkritiker - Gutachter oder Animateur?: Aspekte einer publi-kumspädagogischen Handlungstheorie der Musikpublizistik. Hamburg: Verlag der Musikalienhandlung Karl D. Wagner, 1984. Reus, Gunter. „Musikjournalismus – Ergebnisse aus der wissenschaftlichen Forschung“. In Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Musik und Medien, hrsg. von Stefan Weinacht, Helmut Scherer, 85–102. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008. Seeger, Horst, Hrsg. Der kritische Musikus: Musikkritiken aus drei Jahrhunderten. Leipzig: Reclam, 1966. Schick, Robert D. Classical Music Criticism [=Perspectives in Music Criticism and Theory, Vol. 2]. New York: Routledge, 1996. Schönfelder, Gerd. Zu Theorie und Praxis der Musikkritik. Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1982. Zeitschriften Eimert, Herbert. „Zur Kritik“. Melos, Nr. 20 (1953): 206. Grytsa, Sophia. „Актуальні завдання музичної критики [Aktuelle Aufgaben der Musikkritik]“. Muzyka, Nr. 2 (1972): 2. Yavorskyy, Eduard. „Діалоги дружби [Friedensdialogen]“. Muzyka, Nr. 5 (1993): 3. 208 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.209-225 Lucijan Marija Škerjanc: Critic of the Jutro newspaper from 1927 to 19421 Darja Koter Univerza v Ljubljani University of Ljubljana Lucijan Marija Škerjanc (1900–1973) was one of the most active writers of music criticism and essays in the history of Slovene music, with a career that ran from the end of the First World War until the early 1970s.1 His name brings up more than 700 hits in the Digital Library of the National and University Library in Ljubljana.2 I should mention that he also published outside Slovenia and wrote numerous accompanying texts for concerts that have not been digitised and are not covered by the present paper.3 The focus of attention here will be on the period 1927–1942, when Škerjanc published the bulk of his critical writings in the Ljubljana newspaper Jutro. He focused above all on instrumental, vocal and vocal-instrumental concerts, while, with a few rare exceptions, opera and operetta performances were not the object of his professional attention, perhaps because musical events of this type were covered by other writers such as Stanko Vurnik, Slavko Osterc and Vilko Ukmar, among others. Škerjanc’s musical career begin with family and church singing and the old upright piano he received as a present on his twelfth birthday. His curi-1 This paper is part of Slovenian Research Agency programme P6-0376, Theatrical and Interdisciplinary Artistic Research. 2 Thanks are due to my colleague Zoran Krstulović who kindly drew my attention to the sheer number of reviews written by Škerjanc and to the fact that the dLib.si website of the National and University Library does not cover all of his critical writings. 3 Cf. Tatjana Kralj, ed., Stoletnica rojstva L. M. Škerjanca (Ljubljana: Fundacija Lucijana Marije Škerjanca, Ustanova za ohranjanje kulturne dediščine, 2000), 78–88. 209 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today osity and erudition marked him out as an unusual character even as a student at the lower gymnasium. The piano and his first steps towards composition became his passion. His first piano teachers included Anton Ravnik, Jaroslava Chlumecki and Dana Koblar, while his music theory teachers included the composers Stanko Premrl and Anton Lajovic.4 We learn from Škerjanc’s biographical writings that the teacher who had the greatest influence on him was Anton Lajovic. A thoughtful student with many interests, from 1913 onwards he cut his journalistic teeth writing for the progressive student publication Mi gremo naprej (“Onwards”) at the First State Gymnasium in Ljubljana, while his enthusiasm for composition and his musical abilities were confirmed by the art songs he wrote while still at school. The years of his adolescence and youth were often painful because of illness among his closest family members and frequent financial hardship. At the age of sixteen he lost his grandmother and his father, Max Kramer, who had hitherto supported the family, and was compelled to go out to work. He passed the school-leaving examination in 1918 as an external student, one of a group whose progressive ideas meant that they were not permitted to study for the matura exam in the usual way.5 On the advice of Anton Lajovic, he accepted a position as a répétiteur of the Ljubljana Opera Ballet when the opera house reopened after the First World War, although this was not a role to which he was drawn. In 1919 he enrolled at the University of Ljubljana to study law but abandoned this plan after a few semesters. The following year he enrolled at the Conservatoire in Prague and then, two years later, at the Academy of Music in Vienna. In Vienna he studied composition formally with Joseph Marx while also studying piano privately with Anton Trost, a teacher at the private music school founded by Eduard Horák (active from 1914 until 1939). He completed the first phase of his studies in Vienna in 1924 before pursuing further studies at the Schola Cantorum in Paris. He later studied with the famous conductor Felix Weingartner in Basel. His last diploma, in conducting, bears the date 1939.6 The newspaper Jutro reports that L. M. Škerjanc was awarded a doctorate by the Schola Cantorum in Paris on 11 June 1939, having submitted a dissertation on the composer Jurij Mihevc, with particular emphasis on composition and musical aesthetics.7 4 Jože Sivec, “Škerjanc, Lucijan Marija (1900–1973),” Slovenska biografija (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 2013), https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi652648/. 5 Kralj, Stoletnica rojstva L. M. Škerjanca, 4. 6 Darja Koter, Slovenska glasba 1918–1991 (Ljubljana: Beletrina, 2012), 99–100. 7 O. A., “Kulturni pregled. Francosko-jugoslovanski glasbeni stiki,” Jutro 20, no. 138 (17 June 1939): 7, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-C3GCF1MR. 210 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 Škerjanc developed an interest in journalism and criticism in his secondary school days and was already publishing in as early as 1917 (when he was just sixteen). Initially in the magazines Cerkveni glasbenik (“The church musician”), Dom in svet (“Home and world”) and Ljubljanski zvon (“The Ljubljana bell”), then in the daily newspaper Jutro (“Morning”). He also published occasionally in Zbori (“Choirs”), Slovenski narod (“The Slovene nation”) and Odmevi (“Echoes”). The last of these was a literary and cultural magazine that appeared quarterly between 1929 and 1933 and consisted of short pieces, essays, and poems by literary figures, some well-known and others more obscure, and contributions on culture from other writers. Other publications in which Škerjanc published articles and reflections included a supplement to the Jutro newspaper called Življenje in svet (“Life and the world”) that was dedicated to scientific and, occasionally, musical topics. In 1934 he also appeared as a critic in Naš val (“Our wave”), a weekly magazine dedicated to radio, theatre and cinema that was published between 1934 and 1940. It consisted of commentary on programmes and performances on Radio Ljubljana and on theatrical and cinema presentations. Škerjanc’s legacy of critical writings is dominated by reviews of concerts by local and foreign performers, while he also wrote reviews of published music, obituaries and other pieces on current developments in musical creation and performance in Slovenia. During the Second World War, when concerts were rare, with the exception of public productions by the students of the Academy of Music, he did not publish at all. He resumed his work as a music writer after the war, although in somewhat different contexts from before. Between 1946 and 1948 he contributed programme notes for operas in Gledališki list Opera SNG Ljubljana (“Theatrical gazette of the SNT [Slovene National Theatre] Opera Ljubljana”). In subsequent years his journalistic work was more diverse. He wrote reviews of concerts, for the most part in Ljudska pravi-ca (“The people’s justice”), but also in Slovenski poročevalec (“The Slovene reporter”), Ljubljanski dnevnik (“The Ljubljana daily”) and Naša sodobnost (“Our modern age”). Beginning in 1962, he wrote about current events in Naši razgledi (“Our views”). In 1965 he started writing for Delo (“Labour”). He also published reviews of music publications, pieces introducing Slovene and foreign composers past and present, reflections on music criticism and its constructiveness, comments on concert seasons, and so on. From 1951 to 1972 he mainly dedicated himself to writing accompanying texts for the programmes of concerts by the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra, of 211 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today which he was also the conductor between 1950 and 1955. In 1965 he became the concert critic of the Delo newspaper, where he remained a regular collaborator. His last article appeared just three days before his death. The present paper focuses on the period in which he wrote for Jutro. Published between 1920 and 1945, Jutro was the principal Slovene newspaper for business, education and politics in the interwar period and was highly regarded for the quality of its journalism. As a collaborator of Jutro, Škerjanc published around 240 critical articles between 1927 and 1942. Most of these appeared in the main newspaper in the Kulturni pregled (“Cultural review”) column, while some are found in the Monday supplement Poned-eljek (“Monday”). He also published in another supplement, Življenje in svet (“Life and the world”), for the most part sketches and essays on great composers such as Wagner, Haydn, Handel, and Bach. Škerjanc began collaborating regularly with Jutro in January 1927. For the first two years he only published a modest number of reviews, around eight or nine a year, while between 1929 and 1938 he published between 20 and 25 reviews annually, which meant that he was reviewing the majority of concerts at the Philharmonic Hall and the Union Hall. He also introduced and commented on new musical compositions that appeared in various publications, in this way keeping the reading public informed of current developments in this field. Towards the end of his time at Jutro, between 1939 and 1941, he only published eight or nine reviews. His last review appeared in 1942, the only one he published that year. The years in which he published most prolifically stand as a remarkable chronological overview of the concert calendar and of general cultural life in Ljubljana in the period between the wars and in the first years of the occupation of the city, when concert activities came to an almost entire halt. If his early critical publications up to 1926 tended to be short pieces written in an elegant, elevated, even somewhat poetic style (though he was also capable of being quite severe and uncompromising towards individual performers), over time he developed into a refined connoisseur of critical thought with a great sense of professional responsibility. Drawing on a range of relevant models, he developed his own methodology of critical writing and adopted a format that he continued to use until the end of his collaboration with Jutro. As a musician of broad education and a frequenter of concerts in major centres such as Prague, Vienna and Paris, where he had been a student and where he returned in later years, he was well acquainted with the mission of the critic and aware of his 212 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 responsibility to audience and performers alike. Every one of his articles on a musical event represents an important document of the social and cultural life of the urban environment in which he lived. His writings demonstrate his solid grounding in his subject, something that gave his reflections a particular depth, while his reviews also reveal his personal views of the programme being presented and of the artistic potential of the performers. Criticism is, in fact, also a reflection of the critic’s personality, of the criteria they have formed and of their authority in a given environment. Regarding the personal note as an essential element of every review, Škerjanc wrote: In the end every public work is subject to public judgement – a judgement which, unfortunately, can and must be exercised by one person alone. And that one is always – thank God – subjective.8 Another important element when it comes to evaluating Škerjanc’s writings or responses to musical events is continuity – the confirmation that their author was a regular follower of musical life in Ljubljana in various venues with a clear sense of what was happening on the Slovene, Yugoslav and international concert scenes. He followed solo, chamber and orchestral concerts, the concert programme of Radio Ljubljana, operatic performances and, last but not least, music publishing, which enabled him, as a critic, to give a judgement that was as real and impartial as possible. We see that he was capable of giving due consideration to the numerous factors that influence the concert life of a given social milieu. When evaluating the quality of events, he took into account the opportunities for musical education in the Slovene context, the general cultural level of Slovene society, the artistic level of concert performances, the international compara-bility of performers and concert programmes, and the expectations of the audience – both experts and the general public. He was well aware that it is the critic’s duty to draw attention to an event, to introduce the performer, the programme and the composers concerned, and to say something about the artistic level of the event, but he also knew that the critic must be consistent and sincere. As one of the most active critics of the twentieth century in Slovenia, he helped to spread awareness that musical events are open to public judgement, although this should be the judgement of individuals with the necessary competence. Although with few exceptions Škerjanc’s reviews do not consist of extensive analyses of concerts, he was capable of conveying in a concise manner all the essential elements expect-8 L. M. Š. [Lucijan Marija Škerjanc], “Nova muzika št. 3,” Jutro 9, no. 170 (22 July 1928): 10, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-KI2ADXYF. 213 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ed by the professional and lay public. In them, he shows the right amount of knowledge, expresses himself in understandable and terminologically appropriate language, and at the same time maintains his professionalism with well-argued comments that offer the reader a broader insight into musical art, its content and its interpretation. Despite their concise nature, Škerjanc’s critical writings are complementary accounts of musical life, art and performance and a record of the reactions of the public (and the critic) to artistic achievements. Daily newspapers such as Jutro did not publish really in-depth texts with reflections on artistic events. Cultural reviews were a part of the newspaper’s desire to be topical and relevant in a range of fields, from politics and the economy to culture. Škerjanc’s critical writings in the period in question usually include a presentation of the performers and their credentials, including their formal training and their artistic achievements to date. He explains to what extent an individual concert was interesting to the general public, highlights premiere performances of individual compositions in Ljubljana, and offers expert comments on the cogency of the concert programme. Quite a number of his reviews mention the reaction of the audience, although it is apparent from his comments that he did not have a very high opinion of Ljubljana audiences. He considered them to be too traditional and unwilling to accept innovation with an open mind and accused them of unfairly giving performers a cool reception and responding to them in an uninformed, even condescending manner. His comments on concert programmes reveal his broad erudition and his knowledge of the Slovene and international musical repertoire. He does not omit to give his views on the originality of the programme and on the suitability of the order in which the individual works are performed. He also comments on the quality and suitability of the programme, considers the extent to which a Ljubljana audience – expert or otherwise – might have found it interesting and, above all, focuses on the technical and artistic qualities of the performers, while also pointing out their shortcomings. He is always respectful towards the performers and is restrained in his choice of words even when giving a negative assessment. I will now offer some examples of Škerjanc’s critical writings that clearly illustrate his views on the role of criticism, its content and the attitude of the critic towards performers and audience. He was as attentive to young performers as he was to established musicians and he afforded the same attention to solo, chamber, choral and symphonic concerts. This is demonstrated by his review of a concert by the young Triestine pianist Karmela 214 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 Kosovel, the sister of the great Slovene poet Srečko Kosovel, which included the following comment: Beethoven’s works demand the greatest immersion. On this occasion Beethoven was represented by his rather popular and insignificant Ron-do in G major and an Écossaise; two soft and delicate little pieces that also seemed to me to be somewhat unimaginatively and perfunctori-ly performed, with the result that despite the absolutely impeccable technical skill (which the pianist manifests to an impressively high degree), little remained of the poetic charm that is all the more necessary when performing what – if I may say so – are actually rather banal compositions.9 Škerjanc frequently spoke scathingly of works by the great composers and labelled them inferior or unsuitable for the modern age. An example of this is his review of a concert by the then extremely famous Ševčík Quartet, which had performed all over Europe and garnered excellent reviews. Following a concert by the Quartet in 1927, which was not its first appearance in Ljubljana, Škerjanc wrote: The evening was dedicated to Beethoven. Notwithstanding the rever-ence I feel towards this musical genius, I cannot help feeling that he belongs more to the past century than to this. The content of his string quartets and other compositions is very unmodern and expressed with means that no longer say what they did a hundred years ago and thus can no longer generate the same enthusiasm. A series of special Beethoven concerts is planned for this year [the centenary of Beethoven’s death], despite the fact that there is no essential connection between us and Beethoven, and perhaps some modern music in between would do us more good. [. .] the concert concludes with Beethoven’s last and most mature chamber work, the String Quartet No. 14 in C-sharp minor, Op. 131. This last work is thoroughly modern in places and is still quite interesting today.10 A month later came the main commemoration of the centenary of Beethoven’s death: a performance of his 9th Symphony by the leading Lju-9 L. M. Š., “Koncert pianistke Karmele Kosovelove v Ljubljani,” Jutro 8, no. 8 (11 January 1927): 4, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-U8N6UATH. It should be noted that he somewhat banally characterised Beethoven’s Écossaise as a dance piece of folk origin. Škerjanc frequently spoke scathingly of works by the great composers and labelled them inferior. 10 L. M. Š., “Koncert Ševčikovega kvarteta v Ljubljani,” Jutro 8, no. 40 (16 February 1927): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-4D1R4XFW. 215 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today bljana ensembles of the day. The first concert was performed by the choir of the Glasbena Matica and the chorus of the Ljubljana Opera, directed by Matej Hubad, a symphony orchestra consisting of members of various instrumental groups, and prominent soloists from the National Theatre in Ljubljana. The ensemble was led by the director and artistic director of the Ljubljana Opera, Mirko Polič. Before the concert in a full-to-capacity Union Hall, the expectant audience was addressed by Josip Mantuani, a figure of considerable note and a musicologist with wide-ranging interests, on the importance of Beethoven and his works. While Škerjanc praised the performers, he had harsh words to say about Polič’s interpretation and about the sense, or otherwise, of performing older musical works: “I cannot agree with Mr Polič’s interpretation: it was too modern, perhaps even a little theatrical, and too little grounded in the spirit of Beethoven and his age. ”11 The conductor’s approach to the symphony evidently irritat-ed him enough to prompt an additional comment the following day: It seems necessary to me to emphasise at the outset that I do not consider any musical work to be ‘eternal’, as people are wont to call major works of the musical repertoire. For this reason, I cannot agree with the claim of the introductory speaker [Josip Mantuani] that in music Beethoven is, for the whole world, what Prešeren, say, is in our literature. I believe that the expressive possibilities of the poet are, from the outset, provided by the language in which he expresses himself, and that this matter is more or less constant. [. .] Music, like no other art, is closely tied to the period in which it is written and is only understood in relation to that period. The expressive possibilities of music are so variable that over time they become incomprehensible. [. .] I therefore believe that Beethoven’s ‘immortal’ Ninth is mortal, and that what was gigantic a hundred and more years ago is today only understandable with regard to Beethoven’s era and surroundings. [. .] What I mean to say is that Beethoven’s work cannot have the true effect of an emotive work of art on a historically unprepared listener and that every modern, contemporarily emotional interpretation of his works is misguided. [. .] Even Beethoven has his faults and it is high time that we abandoned the popular schoolroom assertion of his infallibility. His symphony is unquestionably the greatest symphonic work from the start of the past century; it is not, however, to be considered a model and an example worthy of imitation, since this would be to direct our gaze backwards. I therefore believe that it was pointless to invest so much effort and work into 11 L. M. Š., “Beethovnova IX. Simfonija v Ljubljani,” Jutro 8, no. 60 (11 March 1927): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-BVR65K4V. 216 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 this undoubtedly great, yet – for the age we live in and for us in particular – less important work, when so many composers at home and abroad have to content themselves with promises of performances and assur-ances of goodwill.12 Škerjanc’s comment on the anachronistic quality of Beethoven’s music is certainly surprising, all the more so since he was a man of broad education who rarely interwove the modern compositional techniques of his day into his own works. He is, in fact, a composer whose works are largely in the romantic-impressionist style. It should be remembered, however, that in 1926 and 1927, in other words exactly in the period in which this review was written, he did immerse himself for a brief time in the expressionist style and atonality of Schoenberg’s oeuvre and composed a number of works in this spirit, although in his own style. Notable among them is his First Violin Concerto, a single-movement work that is based on atonality without ever entirely abandoning a tonal centre.13 We should also remember that at the time of writing the above review he was 27 years old, had completed his study of composition in Vienna and had so far proved himself as a composer with art songs written in the romantic-impressionist style. He did not start composing instrumental works until the 1930s, and in them he distanced himself from contemporary trends in the belief that expressionism of Schoenberg’s type was “too intel ectual and insufficiently primal y musical, elemental.”14 His opinion of Beethoven’s Missa solemnis, performed in Ljubljana in 1933, was very different: All of Beethoven’s works up to this point were merely a kind of spring-board for this masterwork, with which the composer actually concludes his exploration of hitherto unknown musical landscapes. The Ninth Symphony, which came after the Mass, is of a more retrospective character and completes his life’s work.15 From 1925 until the start of the Second World War, with the exception of a short interruption while he was studying with the conductor Felix 12 M. Škerjanc, “Dodatek h kritiki o Beethovnovi IX. Simfoniji,” Jutro 8, no. 61 (12 March 1927): 3–4, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-U4G5Z74P. 13 Matjaž Barbo, “Prvi koncert za violino in orkester (1927) L. M. Škerjanca,” in Glasba, poezija – ton, beseda: koncerti, simpozij, spremljevalne prireditve [Slovenski glasbeni dnevi 2000], ed. Primož Kuret (Ljubljana: Festival, 2001), 37–42. 14 Boris Grabnar, “L. M. Škerjanc o svoji glasbi,” Tedenska tribuna 8, no. 50 (14 December 1960): 6, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-MLYRYJLE. 15 L. M. Š., “Beethoven, Missa solemnis,” Jutro 14, no. 81 (6 April 1933): 3–4, http:// www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-AD2XTFZQ. 217 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Weingartner in Basel, Škerjanc was the conductor of the Glasbena Matica Orchestral Society in Ljubljana. This was a relatively modest, non-professional ensemble consisting mainly of string players and supplemented by students from the conservatoire. The ensemble performed works suitable for its instrumentation and level of skill, for the most part drawn from the classical repertoire, and works by current Slovene composers, which did not yet include pieces incorporating the latest compositional trends being followed in Europe at that time. Occasionally it would perform larger-scale orchestral works, for which it would have to engage members of the Ljubljana Opera Orchestra and the band of the Drava Division.16 Škerjanc himself composed a number of works for string ensemble which he then performed with the Orchestral Society. These works did not go beyond his traditional compositional technique, which was typically a blend of romantic, impressionist and more modern compositional characteristics, and except in a few rare instances – as already mentioned – never overstepping the boundaries of tonality. He was convinced that Slovene musical creativity, despite its numerical disadvantage, could hold its head up in culturally more developed contexts. This was also a view he advocated publicly in a heated discussion with the composer Anton Lajovic, who was of the opinion that the music of such a small nation as Slovenia did not have wider prospects. In a 1928 piece on the latest issue of Nova muzika (“The new music”), a review edited by Emil Adamič that covered themes from the wider European context, he wrote: I believe that civilised nations do not generally consider artists to be representatives of nations and that the success of a composer is his own personal success, regardless of what nation he belongs to, unless he is merely a collector of folk songs. [. .] We cannot expect to one day ‘con-quer’ other nations with our musical culture; it is merely a matter of carving out a little space for ourselves, perhaps at the very back. As one of the Europe’s least populous nations, we will never be able to compete with others in terms of quantity, but the quality of an individual composer is not, I believe, dependent on the nation or country he belongs to.17 We have already mentioned that Škerjanc did not think much of some of the Ljubljana musical public, which he believed to be unsophisticated 16 For more on the activity of the Orchestral Society, see: Andreja Pernuš, “Ustanovitev in delovanje Orkestralnega društva Glasbene matice v Ljubljani od leta 1919 do 1945” (Master Thesis, University of Ljubljana, 2009). 17 L. M. Š., “Nova muzika št. 3,” 10. 218 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 and unable to tell good from bad. In this regard, following a 1928 concert by the Berlin Symphony Orchestra conducted by Ernst Kunwald (1868– 1939), he wrote that a good part of the Ljubljana audience was convinced it was listening to the famous Berlin Philharmonic, and although the concert programme was adapted to the so-called popular concerts with which the orchestra was touring Yugoslavia, the conductor could be accused of “the vices and habits of the temperamental and affected old-style kapel meisters from the era of Austrian and German military orchestras. ”18 Regarding the error of the audience, he writes: This blunder was also fatal for that section of the audience which, while it is accustomed to observing our home-grown musical endeavours with a critical eye, on this occasion succumbed to euphoric adoration of a company [the Berlin Philharmonic] which it had never had the opportunity to experience at close quarters.19 It is also worth mentioning Škerjanc’s reaction to a concert by the Music Teachers’ Choir, which was considered an excellent vocal ensemble and one of the leading performers of new works by Slovene composers, something greatly appreciated by Škerjanc. He wrote: [T]hat this is the only choir in the country today that is willing to tackle the most challenging and least gratifying choral works and does so very successfully. [. .] Particularly interesting was Kogoj’s highly complicated song Vrabci in strašilo [‘The sparrows and the scarecrow’], in which the choir was able to demonstrate its great musical intelligence, since this unusual, inventive piece contains difficulties that are practically insurmountable.20 As a connoisseur of art song, Škerjanc was well equipped to review the performance by the famed Slovene opera and concert singer Pavla Lovše, who in 1929, on her return from a tour of the United States of America, appeared in front of a Ljubljana audience with a programme of American songs. While Škerjanc’s review praised the singer’s remarkable artistic qualities, he was less forgiving about the programme, which consisted of established works from the American concert stage: 18 L. M. Š., “Koncert Berlinskega simfoničnega orkestra,” Jutro 9, no. 226 (26 September 1928): 7, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-KH5AGXAN. 19 Ibid. 20 L. M. Š., “Koncert pevskega zbora učiteljstva UJU v Ljubljani,” Jutro 10, no. 8 (9 January 1929): 3–4, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-8VAZ2NXV. 219 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today [T]hese are songs that can give the listener a fairly good idea of the calibre of art music in this English-speaking nation, which is currently at about the same level that Volarič, Foerster, etc., were at in this country some time ago, only that the songs are more refined and have a better technical foundation. Light melodies that are easy to understand and somewhat banal and cheap, harmonies that are unoriginal and unexcit-ing: the prototype of placid, pre-war bourgeois life. [. .] In this country we are indeed already far beyond this type of sentimentality.21 Let us now look at Škerjanc’s comment on a concert evening dedicated to the chamber music of Slavko Osterc, which Škerjanc considered, in the first place, a courageous act, since this type of public exposure was not yet common among Slovene composers: In this regard, Slavko Osterc has taken the courageous step forward from conventionality and it is to be hoped that his example (of which I would like to see a continuation) will also encourage others.22 He was also full of praise for Osterc’s compositions and the performances of the young musicians, writing: His Štiri šaljivke [“Four humorous songs”] for voice and two clarinets are successful little compositions in which Osterc’s special talent for the grotesque and caricature, something we have already seen in his one-act Iz komične opere [“From the comic opera”], is particularly evident. The most successful part of the evening was the cycle of four settings of poems by Gradnik for voice and string quartet. This combination (mas-terfully presented in recent times by A. Schoenberg) is a particularly fe-licitous one, in that the voice takes on much more warmth than when accompanied by the piano. The compositions themselves represent for me the highlight of the evening and of Osterc’s oeuvre to date, at least that part of it with which I am familiar. The composer has found here a technique that combines theoretical advances with depth and warmth of expression – two elements which Osterc (perhaps deliberately) is otherwise eliminating from his composition.23 Having completed the secondary level at the Prague Conservatoire, Slavko Osterc was in this period already working as a teacher at the State 21 L. M. Š., “Koncert ge. Pavle Lovšetove v Ljubljani,” Jutro 10, no. 108 (10 May 1929): 5, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-UKI7KJWM. 22 L. M. Š., “Osterčev komorni večer v Ljubljani,” Jutro 11, no. 35 (12 February 1930): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-QYD9MKTT. 23 Ibid. 220 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 Conservatoire in Ljubljana. He was a great opponent of romanticism and sentimentality and an ardent advocate of new music, expressionism, neo-classicism and Hába’s quarter-tone compositional technique. Although Škerjanc spoke in positive terms about Osterc’s work in the review just quoted, his opinion changed in the years that followed and the two became great enemies. The year 1935 was marked by the 250th anniversaries of the births of two musical giants, Bach and Handel. In contrast to his reaction to the Beethoven centenary some years before, Škerjanc responded to these commemora-tions with great respect for the two baroque masters. Regarding the importance of Handel, he wrote: His greatest monument is the one he erected himself through his life’s work, which consists of an enormous number of compositions of all the genres customary in his day. While he may not have been the pioneer of a new musical age, he was a giant and an undisputed master of the baroque era. His works will live on for as long as the world is peopled by civilised nations.24 The year 1934 saw the foundation of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Orchestra, the culmination of years of effort in this direction. An amalgama-tion of the Ljubljana Opera Orchestra, the orchestra of the Glasbena Matica Orchestral Society and the orchestra of the State Conservatoire, the new symphony orchestra set itself the goal of giving three major concerts a year, at which it would perform works from the international repertoire alongside works by Slovene composers, under the baton of eminent guest conductors. The guest conductor in the orchestra’s first year was the Czech maestro Václav Talich (1883–1961), who had been the first conductor of the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra in the early years of the century, while in 1935 Ljubljana’s new orchestra was conducted by the French maestro Rhené-Baton (1879–1940). Škerjanc was enthusiastic about the latter and full of praise for the efforts of the performers, who in his view exceeded all expectations. Confidently predicting that the orchestra would go on to even better things in the future, he hailed the decision to found the ensemble and wrote: The performance of the young Philharmonic Orchestra was a successful demonstration of the ambition, hard work and artistic enthusiasm that characterises this young company, which has been entrusted with the task of filling such a sensitive gap in our musical life. Two concerts 24 L. M. Š., “Ob 250 letnici G. F. Haendla,” Jutro 16, no. 45 (23 February 1935): 3–4, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-EI1EDNGJ. 221 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today a year under a chosen conductor may not be much, but it is therefore all the more welcome. [. .] The development of our musical culture continues its slow and steady journey and the members of the Philharmonic will introduce the Slovene audience to important works of the symphonic repertoire which they would otherwise never have the opportunity to hear in Ljubljana.25 Guest performances by leading conductors and orchestras served as an encouragement to local musicians to tackle major projects themselves. One such project was the performance of Handel’s Messiah in 1935. Once again, practically all the musicians in Ljubljana, including the finest in-strumentalists, solo singers, and choral singers, joined forces for the performance. The ensemble was conducted by the Catholic priest, composer and musicologist Anton Dolinar, a graduate of the University of Vienna’s Faculty of Philosophy, where he studied under the renowned musicologist Guido Adler, receiving his doctorate in 1927 and later dedicating himself to musical aesthetics. Škerjanc praised the performance of the Messiah as an outstanding achievement by local musicians and highlighted the need for more thorough training for Slovene choir directors and conductors.26 Following a concert by the four Slovene “modernists”, as Danilo Švara, Slavko Osterc and the latter’s pupils Franc Šturm and Bogo Leskovic were known, Škerjanc offered the most positive criticism of Osterc’s works and labelled him the most technically proficient. Taking a lead from then current literature, he described Švara’s compositions as atonal works with the characteristics of Schoenberg’s school, which had already had its day, and emphasised that the new music was no longer satisfied with the intervallic relationships between the individual tones of the dodecaphonic system, as the simple instruction of the atonal composers would have it, and that composers were “instead seeking different, ethical forces in music”27 – although Škerjanc did not expand further on this topic. Škerjanc’s critical writings in Jutro offer more than just comments on the credentials of performers, concert programmes and the success of performances. They are also an important contribution to our knowledge in that they help complete our picture of the concert scene in Ljubljana in the 25 L. M. Š., “Dirigent Rhené-Baton v Ljubljani,” Jutro 16, no. 76 (31 March 1935): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-G2804H3X. 26 L. M. Š., “Händlov Mesija,” Jutro 16, no. 129 (5 June 1935): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?UR-N=URN:NBN:SI:doc-GG7U18L2. 27 L. M. Š., “Slovenska moderna glasba,” Jutro 16, no. 264 (14 November 1935): 3, http:// www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-NVZ2IFF6. 222 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 period in question. With his critical ear, he informed and educated audiences, both professional and amateur, and, through the application of his own aesthetic and professional criteria, helped shape public attitudes towards artistic creativity and performance. I would like to end by mentioning Škerjanc’s published letters from Paris, where he spent several months at the end of 1936 and the beginning of the following year. He attended numerous concerts during his stay and duly informed the readers of Jutro about them, focusing on the performers, the programme and the response of the audience, and comparing all this to the musical life of Ljubljana. His reports reveal that not everything was first rate even in Paris, although the programmes of concerts in the French capital were incomparably weightier and more modern than those in Ljubljana.28 Škerjanc’s “Third Letter from Paris”, containing as it does a triumphant report of numerous performances of his own compositions in Paris concert venues and on the radio, is particularly interesting. He is at pains to point out that he himself would be appearing alongside his Parisian colleagues, as pianist (he was known to be a good pianist). He notes, somewhat sarcastically and cynically, that all these events “will only interest a hand-ful of my friends who have dared to defend my views despite cruel pressure from all sides […].”29 We know that there were quite a number of disagree-ments between Škerjanc and other Slovene musicians. Aspects of his criticism and certain other characteristics had made Škerjanc a rather unpopular figure and he frequently engaged in heated public discussions in which he used harsh and even insulting language. He ends this letter, after giving a long list of performances of his works, with a triumphant fling at his enemies: Is this enough? Here is something else for those who will understand: I have been elected – the first Slovene to be so honoured – to the ‘Société française de musicologie’, whose publications are a model of modern essayistic and aesthetic musical style, as a corresponding member, on the strength of my submitted lectures on the French and Yugoslav musical repertoires.30 28 L. M. Š., “Glasbeno pismo iz Pariza,” Jutro 17, no. 297 (23 December 1936): 7, http:// www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-QCTTC6FC. 29 L. M. Š., “Tretje pariško pismo,” Jutro 18, no. 15 (19 January 1937): 7, http://www.dlib .si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-0FJLTNEW. 30 Ibid. 223 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Lucijan Marija Škerjanc concluded his collaboration with Jutro with one of his longest and most in-depth pieces from the entire pre-war period: a review of Verdi’s Requiem performed by Ljubljana’s foremost soloists, choral singers and orchestral musicians in honour of the recently deceased Slovene politician and patron of culture Anton Korošec. Škerjanc’s review of Verdi’s masterpiece confirms his broad erudition, his rich journalistic experience and his excellent knowledge of the artistic potential and abilities of the Slovene musicians of the period. He described it as a unique high point among concerts in pre-war Ljubljana and expressed the hope that more concerts of this calibre could be expected in the future.31 Little did he know that this would be the last major concert before the start of the Second World War, something symbolically predicted by the title of the work. Bibliography Literature Barbo, Matjaž. “Prvi koncert za violino in orkester (1927) L. M. Škerjanca,” in Glasba, poezija – ton, beseda: koncerti, simpozij, spremljevalne prireditve [Slovenski glasbeni dnevi 2000], edited by Primož Kuret, 37–42. Ljubljana: Festival, 2001. Koter, Darja. Slovenska glasba 1918–1991. Ljubljana: Beletrina, 2012. Kralj, Tatjana, ed. Stoletnica rojstva L. M. Škerjanca. Ljubljana: Fundacija Lucijana Marije Škerjanca, Ustanova za ohranjanje kulturne dediščine, 2000. Pernuš, Andreja. “Ustanovitev in delovanje Orkestralnega društva Glasbene matice v Ljubljani od leta 1919 do 1945.” Master Thesis, University of Ljubljana, 2009. Sivec, Jože. “Škerjanc, Lucijan Marija (1900–1973).” Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 2013. https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba /sbi652648/. Periodicals Grabnar, Boris. “Lucijan Marija Škerjanc o svoji glasbi.” Tedenska tribuna 8, no. 50 (14 December 1960): 6. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN: NBN:SI:doc-MLYRYJLE. L. M. Š. [Lucijan Marija Škerjanc] “Koncert pianistke Karmele Kosovelove v Ljubljani.” Jutro 8, no. 8 (11 January 1927): 4. http://www.dlib .si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-U8N6UATH. 31 L. M. Š., “Verdijev ‘Requiem’,” Jutro 22, no. 31 (6 February 1941): 3–4, http://www .dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-CARWGGFS. 224 lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 L. M. Š. “Koncert Ševčikovega kvarteta v Ljubljani.” Jutro 8, no. 40 (16 February 1927): 3. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-4D1R4XFW. L. M. Š. “Beethovnova IX. Simfonija v Ljubljani.” Jutro 8, no. 60 (11 March 1927): 3. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-BVR65K4V. L. M. Š. “Nova muzika št. 3.” Jutro 9, no. 170 (22 July 1928): 10. http://www.dlib .si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-KI2ADXYF. L. M. Š. “Koncert Berlinskega simfoničnega orkestra.” Jutro 9, no. 226 (26 September 1928): 7. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-KH5AGXAN. L. M. Š. “Koncert pevskega zbora učiteljstva UJU v Ljubljani.” Jutro 10, no. 8 (9 January 1929): 3–4. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-8VAZ2NXV. L. M. Š. “Koncert ge. Pavle Lovšetove v Ljubljani.” Jutro 10, no. 108 (10 May 1929): 5. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-UKI7KJWM. L. M. Š. “Osterčev komorni večer v Ljubljani.” Jutro 11, no. 35 (12 February 1930): 3. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-QYD9MKTT. L. M. Š. “Beethoven, Missa solemnis.” Jutro 14, no. 81 (6 April 1933): 3–4. http:// www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-AD2XTFZQ. L. M. Š. “Ob 250 letnici G. F. Haendla.” Jutro 16, no. 45 (23 February 1935): 3–4. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-EI1EDNGJ. L. M. Š. “Dirigent Rhené-Baton v Ljubljani.” Jutro 16, no. 76 (31 March 1935): 3. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-G2804H3X. L. M. Š. “Händlov Mesija.” Jutro 16, no. 129 (5 June 1935): 3. http://www.dlib .si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-GG7U18L2. L. M. Š. “Slovenska moderna glasba.” Jutro 16, no. 264 (14 November 1935): 3. http:// www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-NVZ2IFF6. L. M. Š. “Glasbeno pismo iz Pariza.” Jutro 17, no. 297 (23 December 1936): 7. http:// www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-QCTTC6FC. L. M. Š. “Tretje pariško pismo.” Jutro 18, no. 15 (19 January 1937): 7. http://www .dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-0FJLTNEW. L. M. Š. “Verdijev ‘Requiem’.” Jutro 22, no. 31 (6 February 1941): 3–4. http://www. dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-CARWGGFS. O. A. “Kulturni pregled. Francosko-jugoslovanski glasbeni stiki.” Jutro 20, no. 138 (17 June 1939): 7. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-C3GCF1MR. Škerjanc, M. “Dodatek h kritiki o Beethovnovi IX. Simfoniji.” Jutro 8, no. 61 (12 March 1927): 3–4. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-U4G5Z74P. 225 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.227-244 “A Critique of Criticism”: An Attempt to Outline “More Appropriate” Sociopolitical Guidelines in Post-World War II Slovenian Music Criticism1 Jernej Weiss Univerza v Ljubljani / Univerza v Mariboru University of Ljubljana / University of Maribor The socialist respectively communist period in Yugoslavia – which lasted from the end of the Second World War until the country’s break-up in 1991 – was not characterised by a uniform attitude towards the arts on the part of the authorities. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Yugoslav politics and, consequently, culture were strongly based on the Soviet model. It was effectively a direct importation of an ideological programme, the responsibility for which lay with the Department for Agitation and Propaganda (Agitprop), founded in 1945 with the primary function of ensuring the ideological and political education of the masses along the lines of the Soviet cultural doctrine of Zhdanovism. As early as 1948, however, following the split between Tito and Stalin, there was a break with the Soviet Comin-form, and consequently a greater political reliance on the West. 1 Following the dissolution of Agitprop in 1952, the direct influence of politics on culture in Slovenia was much smaller than it was in the Soviet Union. With the exception of the phenomenon of the “mass song”, one cannot talk about a uniform model of socialist realist art in Slovenia. For 1 The paper was presented in a shorter version entitled “Vprašanje avtonomnosti glasbene kritike v slovenskem dnevnem časopisju ob praizvedbi kantate ‘Stara pravda’ Matije Tomca: med estetsko sodbo in političnim konstruktom” [Functional and autonomous in music at the premiere of Matija Tomc’s cantata Stara pravda] at the international musicological symposium “Functional and autonomous in music: imag-es and meanings” (19–20 October 2006, Musicological Institute at the ZRC SAZU) and published in De musica disserenda 3, no. 1 (2007): 101–15, https://doi.org/10.3986/ dmd03.1.09. 227 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today example, Niall O’Loughlin, the author of a comprehensive historical overview of 20th century Slovenian music, does not use the term “socialist art” in his description of the post-1945 period, unlike some other authors.2 Lojze Lebič speaks of “normative aesthetics”,3 while Ivan Klemenčič speaks of the “prescribed model”.4 The latter is supposed to mean primarily the abandonment of autonomous aesthetics and the developmental discontinuity of Slovenian music. Although socialist realism prescribed things on a formal level, the model of this ideologically conditioned art was never clearly defined in Slovenia or anywhere else . Indeed, as Marina Frolova-Walker demonstrated at the recent online conference organised by the University of Leipzig and the University of Cambridge,5 a uniform model of socialist realism cannot even be detected in the Soviet Union of that period. Slovenian policy with regard to cultural questions was almost entirely autonomous, even with respect to the Yugoslav authorities, and politics did not involve itself in concrete musical or aesthetic issues. Composers and musical institutions in Slovenia were, of course, dependent on certain apparatchiks in the institutional hierarchy who were responsible for distributing money. The regime did not prohibit contacts between Slovenian composers and their foreign counterparts, although in practice it was extremely difficult for Slovenian composers to systematically establish personal contacts with the West, since financial assistance for trips abroad was limited and carefully allocated. During the first decade after the war, cooperation with some Western European musical cultures was virtually impossible. More or less carefully selected delegations of Yugoslav composers were sent to contemporary music festivals.6 In a similar way, in the difficult conditions following the Second World War, Slovenian choral creativity as well 2 Niall O’Loughlin, Novejša glasba v Sloveniji (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000). 3 Lojze Lebič, “Glasovi časov (II). O slovenski glasbeni ustvarjalnosti,” Naši zbori 45, no. 5–6 (1993): 114. 4 Ivan Klemenčič, “Glasba in totalitarna država na Slovenskem,” in Temna stran meseca: kratka zgodovina totalitarizma v Sloveniji 1945–1990, ed. Drago Jančar (Ljubljana: Nova revija, 1998), 325. 5 Marina Frolova-Walker, “Socialist Realism in Music, Globally,” (a Royal Musical Association-affiliated one-day conference hosted by the University of Cambridge and Universität Leipzig, July 1, 2022, virtual). 6 Leon Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” in In memoriam Danilo Pokorn, eds. Nataša Cigoj Krstulović, Tomaž Faganel and Metoda Kokole (Ljubljana: Muzikološki inštitut ZRC SAZU, 2004), 139. 228 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. as publications, and with them also music criticism, failed to reach the level they had attained at the beginning of the century.7 The decline of church music after the Second World War Alongside operetta and jazz, the most marginalised musical genre was, without a doubt, church music, which before the Second World War had enjoyed what could even be called a dominant role in Slovenia. As part of the bourgeois tradition of the recent past, church music had already seen its presence in Slovenia greatly limited by the dissolution of the Glasbena Matica, the principal Slovenian music society at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Contributing to its almost total marginalisation in the most oppressive Agitprop years immediately after the end of the Second World War were the abolition of what was then the country’s only school of church music – the Organ School in Ljubljana – and the closure of the oldest music periodical in the Slovenian language, Cerkveni glasbenik (“The Church Musician”).8 Performing artists also only exceptionally performed church compositions. Among notable such events we find a concert in support of the Red Cross held on 4 November 1946, when the violinist Zlatko Baloković played Schubert’s Ave Maria as a supplement; Ode on St. Cecilia‘s Day 1692 by Purcell, played by the Ljubljana Radio Orchestra at the concert on 11 February 1947, conducted by Alan Bush at the Union Hall; a concert dedicated to J. S. Bach on 30 March 1950, where the conductor Danilo Švara performed two of the composer’s airs with the Academy of Music orchestra (one was from St. Matthew Passion), and solemn concerts dedicated to Jacobus Handl Gallus, held from 7 to 12 November 1950, where the some of his motets were performed.9 Evidence that the presence not only of church music but, more broadly, of a Catholic mentality was indeed undesirable in public life is provid-7 For example, the editorial board of one of the central music magazines of the time, Naši zbori (“Our Choirs”) was deeply concerned about the state of Slovenian music culture after the Second World War, as neither the production nor the quality of post-war choral creativity reached the pre-war level. Two of the main composers at the time, Karol Pahor and Janko Ravnik, saw the causes of this in the lack of compositional training and the shift towards instrumental music. However, it seems likely that the causes may also lie in the ideological exposure of the genre in question, which is most unambiguous in the text. Karol Pahor, “Kriza v naši zborovski glasbi,” Naši zbori 7, no. 3 (1952): 6–8. See also: Janko Ravnik, “Še nekaj besed o krizi v zborovski glasbi,” Naši zbori 8, no. 1–2 (1953): 2–3. 8 The Church Musician began to be published again only in 1976. 9 Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” 140. 229 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ed not only by the statements of political leaders of the time, among them Boris Kidrič, the first prime minister of the National Government of Slovenia, who at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Slovenia spoke of the “renewed petit bourgeois pressure from the clergy,”10 but also by an incident involving one of the leading Slovenian composers of sacred music of the 20th century, Matija Tomc,11 who was himself a clergyman. The latter served as a warning to all contemporary composers of sacred music, and also to critics. Cantata Stara pravda (“The Old Rights”) from Matija Tomc In 1956 the Tone Tomšič Academic Choir decided to mark the 10th anniver-sary12 of its activity under conductor Radovan Gobec with a jubilee concert. As director of the choir, Gobec decided that the choir should, if possible, perform an original Slovenian full-length choral composition at this concert, so in as early as October 1954 he contacted Tomc, an “old friend of the Tone Tomšič Academic Choir,” with a request for him to compose a work.13 He had also contacted other composers, but failed to persuade any of them to get involved.14 Despite certain reservations, Tomc, who was an 10 At this meeting Kidrič identified the principal problem of the Slovenian cultural environment facing the communist authorities at that time as “petit bourgeois pressure from the clergy. ” Darinka Drnovšek, Zapisniki politbiroja CK ZPS/ZKS 1945–1954 (Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2000), 257. 11 The composer Marijan Lipovšek wrote in Slovenska glasbena revija (“Slovenian Music Review”) in 1957: “Undoubtedly, after Adamič, he is our first choral composer.” Marijan Lipovšek, “Koncertna sezona 1955/56,” Slovenska glasbena revija 4, no. 1 (1957): 15. 12 It was the 10th anniversary of the academic choir, which was directed by Radovan Gobec during this period. The Slovenian daily newspapers seem to believe that the choir was formed after the war, as they do not mention the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the choir’s male section, which was led by France Marolt between 1926 and 1941. Shortly after the Second World War, Gobec continued the tradition of Marolt’s choir, but he mostly included new singers and also reclassified the group as a mixed choir. In the autumn of 1953, it was decided at the general assembly that Gobec’s academic choir would take over the name of Marolt’s choir, and then change it slightly to the Tone Tomšič Academic Choir. Simona Moličnik Šivic, Mladi že 80 let: Akademski pevski zbor »Tone Tomšič« (Ljubljana: Narodna in univerzitetna knji- žnica, 2006), 28. 13 Gobec is said to have addressed his request for the setting to “an old friend of the APZ and Marolt’s colleague and their honorary member, the composer Matija Tomc.” Anon., “Akademski pevski zbor v jubilejnem letu,” Slovenski poročevalec 16, no. 226 (27 September 1955): 4, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-KZVEQZGV. 14 Edo Škulj, “Tomčeve kantate,” Tomčev zbornik, ed. Edo Škulj (Ljubljana: Družina, 1997), 19. 230 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. honorary member of the choir and had a particular fondness for it, accepted Gobec’s invitation. Since the choir’s jubilee coincided with the centenary of the birth of the poet-priest Anton Aškerc, the composer, prompted by Gobec, decided to set Aškerc’s epic poem Stara pravda (“The Old Rights”) to music. Before beginning the process of composition, Tomc foresaw a number of difficulties connected with the great length15 of the poem, the number of performers required and, in particular, the frequent metrical shifts16 in Aškerc’s text – all problems which had discouraged composers from attempting to set this monumental work in the almost 70 years since its publication. In order to be able to use the full text of the poem, Tomc (following the example of Honegger’s famous oratorio Le Roi David) added a reciter to the vocal sections, as this was the only way the full text could be delivered in a relatively short time. As there are several places in the text that also require soloists, he used two soloists, adding a piano where necessary to support them.17 The second problem Tomc faced was whether the piece should be purely vocal or vocal-instrumental, as is usual for cantatas. Tomc preferred an exclusively vocal composition, as the Academic Choir Tone Tomšič was only a vocal ensemble. The planned concerts in Zagreb, Celje, Trbovlje, Maribor and Belgrade finally dissuaded the composer from orchestrating 15 In 1980, on the occasion of the second performance of Stara pravda at the concert of Consortium Musicum on 16 May 1980, Tomc wrote in the concert programme: “First the length of the poem itself. Art has nothing to do with mathematics, but in this case it comes in handy. Stara pravda has 835 verses. In contrast, Prešeren’s Sonetni venec (“A Wreath of Sonnets”), set by Lucijan Marija Škerjanc, has only 210 verses, i.e. around a quarter the number in Stara pravda. If Stara pravda was set in a similar way to Sonetni venec, it could have needed four full-length concerts. But of course only one was desired.” Matija Tomc, Uglasbitev Stare pravde. Koncert ob osemdesetletnici skladatelja Matije Tomca, Ljubljana, 16 May 1980 [a concert programme of the Consortium musicum Society]. 16 Aškerc would often suddenly change the rhythm in Stara pravda, as if something had broken. For the composer, who often found it difficult to adapt the rhythm of the composition to the poem, a new difficulty arose, as this change in the poem lasts only one or two verses. It must therefore have taken considerable effort for the composer to adapt these metrical changes in the poem to the composition’s rhythmic progression. Ibid. 17 This was a deliberate move, as evidenced by the report in the Slovenski poročevalec in 1956 (signed “bp”), which says that the dramatised recitative had an excellent effect and in no way disturbed the musical harmony of the concert. BP, “Pojó, pojó, da še nikdar tako …,” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 62 (14 March 1956): 5, http://www.dlib .si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-PI7QG7B7. 231 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today the work, as “no choir, even if it were financial y well off, could take an orchestra with it on tours to other cities, least of all a student choir.”18 The ten-part poem symbolises the heroic epic of the Slovenian and Croatian peasant revolts, which reached their tragic culmination with the “coronation” of Matija Gubec in Zagreb. Gubec was the leader of a peasant revolt that united Slovenian and Croatian peasants and was violently sup-pressed in 1573. On 15 February of that year, Gubec was crowned with a red-hot iron crown in a mock coronation – a gesture intended to ridicule the rebels – and then quartered like a common brigand in Zagreb’s St Mark’s Square. Regarding his chosen form of musical expression, the composer wrote that he wished to “combine Aškerc’s healthy realism with a form of musical expression that is modern, but not exaggeratedly so.”19 The work, in fact, contains no radically modern approaches to compositional technique. Tomc commented as follows: Surely it would not be a good idea to go back seventy years to the time when the poem Stara pravda was written, that is to the age of reading societies. However, it was not appropriate to set a composition intended for the widest possible audience in the confines of a contemporary extreme – let’s call it atonality.20 From a musical point of view, then, it could not have excited controversy even among the keenest advocates of the popular and simple in music. Not only that, but in its magnificent choral passages the work is occasionally reminiscent of the mass songs from Partisan celebrations that could be heard everywhere in that period. The work received numerous plaudits from Tomc’s fellow composers. Marijan Lipovšek, for example, ranked it among “by far the most important vocal-instrumental works we have, alongside Škerjanc and Lajovic.”21 The view of the critics before the concert How, then, did the critics or journalists of the day view the preparations for the jubilee concert, in a period that was hardly well-disposed towards the Catholic cultural community? Before the event, a number of critics (includ-18 Tomc, Uglasbitev stare pravde. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid . 21 Lipovšek, “Koncertna sezona 1955/56,” 15. 232 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. ing the composer Jože Gregorc, then head of the music department at Radio Maribor), announced a “mighty cantata”22 for choir, soloists, reciter and piano “to mark the 10th anniversary of successful work by the Tone Tomšič Academic Choir”.23 The work was said to have made a “rich contribution to Slovenian choral literature,”24 and was among the composer’s “most important creations. ”25 With the exception of an encomium to Aškerc’s freethinking mentality, which had apparently led this conscious liberal to “courageously re-nounce his vocation – the priesthood,”26 no ideological positions of any kind can be detected in the writings of contemporary critics, who limited themselves to announcing a cultural event that in terms of the quality not only of the performance, but also of the work itself, as an artistic creation, in many respects transcended the provincial parameters of the Slovenian vocal-instrumental music of the period. The “incident in the Union Hall” The “countless rehearsals before the first performance,”27 as they are described by Matjaž Kmecl, a member of the choir at the time, were followed on 12 March 1956 by the premiere in the Union Hall (the concert hall of Ljubljana’s Grand Hotel Union). Like a number of party dignitaries,28 headed 22 J. P., “Pred jubilejnim koncertom,” Ljubljanski dnevnik 6, no. 58 (8 March 1956): 4. 23 Ibid. 24 Jože Gregorc, “Jubilejni koncert ob desetletnici Akademskega pevskega zbora,” Ljubljanski dnevnik 6, no. 67 (1956): 4. 25 Bogdan Pogačnik, “Pred jubilejnim koncertom Akademskega pevskega zbora,” Tedenska tribuna 4, no. 10 (8 March 1956): 9. 26 Due to disputes with the Bishop of Lavant, who allegedly accused Aškerc of interpreting Church matters in his own way, Aškerc asked for retirement in 1898 after seventeen years of priestly service. Aškerc, a staunch liberal, is said to have come under fierce attack from the clerical camp. The daily newspapers claimed that some intellectuals decided to study theology due to the poor financial situation the nation was facing, which was said to have “destroyed the life goals of young, capable Slovenian intellectuals and brought them to the seminary. ” J. P., “Pred jubilejnim koncertom,” 4. 27 Matjaž Kmecl, “In memoriam Radovan Gobec (1. 6. 1909–14. 4. 1995),” Naši zbori 47, no. 1–3 (1995): 1. 28 The most prominent representatives of social life present at the premiere of Tomc’s cantata included: the Vice-Chairman of the Assembly of the People‘s Republic of Slovenia, Ferdo Kozak; the Vice-Chairman of the Executive Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Marijan Brecelj; Member of the Executive Council Boris Kocjančič; and the Rector of the University of Ljubljana, Anton Kuhelj. Anon., “Jubilejni koncert APZ,” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 61 (13 March 1956): 8, http://www.dlib.si/?UR-N=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-75WMOAJR. 233 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today by Boris Ziherl, the patron of the concert, the composer Tomc attended the first performance of his cantata “in plain clothes and sat unobtrusively in the third row. ”29 We should mention that Boris Ziherl was at the time a senior Communist Party functionary, better known in this context as the former director of Agitprop. Less well known is the fact that in 1955 and 1956 Ziherl was also occasionally active as a reporter for the two principal Slovenian newspapers, Slovenski poročevalec (“The Slovenian Reporter”) and Ljubljanski dnevnik (“The Ljubljana Daily”), and thus had good connections with both. Otherwise, as pointed out by Aleš Gabrič, one of the leading experts on cultural-political conditions in Slovenia after the Second World War, Ziherl was apparently the most orthodox of all [in the party leadership at the time], someone who at every step saw risks of divergence from the party line in artistic works and in people who, for whatever reason, deviated from the de-clared political orientation.30 The concert was a triumphant success. The audience, which filled every last seat in the Union Hall, rewarded the performers and composer with tu-multuous applause. Despite a few minor failings in the choir’s interpretation of the work, the critics reporting on the event agreed unanimously that, as Gregorc puts it, “the choir was ful y equal to the demands placed on the ensemble by Tomc’s setting.”31 Writing in Slovenski poročevalec, Bogdan Pogačnik, who would later publish a monograph on one of Slovenia’s best known vocal ensembles, Slovenski oktet (Slovenian Octet), even referred to the “fine-sounding intermezzos of sacred music”.32 Zmaga Kumer, later to become one of Slovenia’s leading ethnomusicologists, noted enthusiastically in her review of the concert that the creative power of Tomc’s artistic personality, his original musical expression and his tireless activity place him among the most prominent contemporary Slovenian composers and it appears likely that his name will feature in many more concert programmes in the future.33 29 Matjaž Kmecl, “Vrtičkarjevi zimski dnevi,” Sobotna priloga, Delo 42, no. 12 (2000): 38. 30 Aleš Gabrič, “Zajčeva Požgana trava v očeh partijskih ideologov,” Nova revija 13, no. 147–148 (1994): 168. 31 Gregorc, Jubilejni koncert ob desetletnici Akademskega pevskega zbora, 4. 32 BP, “Pojó, pojó, da še nikdar tako …,” 5. 33 Zmaga Kumer, Matija Tomc. Koncert ob desetletnici zbora in v počastitev stoletnice rojstva Antona Aškerca, Ljubljana, 12 March 1956 [a concert programme of the choir APZ Tone Tomšič]. 234 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. Nevertheless, what became known as “the incident in the Union Hal ”34 turned all these expectations on their head. The unfortunate occurrence met with a harsh response from certain orthodox party ideologues who resented above all the fact that at the end of the concert the choir chose to honour the compositional contribution of the Catholic intellectual Matija Tomc. Before the concert the choir’s management had, in fact, been explicitly instructed that the cultural event must take place without any such tribute being paid to the composer. Despite this, the conductor Gobec presented Tomc with a gold laurel wreath and the composer gave two bare-ly perceptible bows to the enthusiastic audience from his place in the third row. It appears that the success of a concert consisting of music incorporating sacred intermezzos35 was too much for the authorities of the period and, as a consequence, the incident also required sanctions in the sphere of music criticism. The choir director Radovan Gobec was forced to resign from the party the very next day, and was later summoned for “re-education”36 because of his collaboration with Tomc. The pressure on the choir was so great that it also lost its conductor and almost broke up. According to Mitja Gobec, his father Radovan once told him that he had to report to the secretary of the OK ZKS Ljubljana (the local communist committee), Janez Vipotnik, the day after the premiere of Stara pravda because of the above-mentioned “incident”. Vipotnik and Gobec are said to have known each other and been on good terms. Mitja Gobec writes that at the above-mentioned meeting Vipotnik asked Gobec: “Radovan, do you have the Party book with you can you show it to me? ” Gobec allegedly showed him the book and Vipotnik then “deposited” it in a desk drawer, thus expelling Gobec from the Communist Party.37 Gobec’s resignation as conductor could not take immediate effect, as the choir was about to embark on a concert tour. After the last concert in Zagreb, Gobec stepped down as conductor of the choir. According to the account by Gobec’s wife, Jožica Gobec, it seems he resigned mainly because 34 S. B., “Ven iz teme. Ob XII. občnem zboru Akademskega pevskega zbora ‘Tone Tom- šič’,” Tribuna 5, no. 16–17 (1957): 4. 35 BP, “Pojó, pojó, da še nikdar tako …,” 5. 36 Kmecl, “Vrtičkarjevi zimski dnevi,” 38. 37 Mitja Gobec, email message to Jernej Weiss, April 13, 2007. 235 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today he disagreed with the repressive measures taken by the authorities, as he was extremely disappointed with their conduct, which he opposed.38 “A Critique of Criticism” On this occasion, political sanctions did not end at the personal level but also demanded a systematic response in the sphere of music criticism in general. The editor-in-chief of Slovenski poročevalec, Sergej Vošnjak, later an editor at some of Slovenia’s most important media organisations, took advantage of the affair to attack critics who, in his view, judged art purely on the basis of artistic criteria without taking sociopolitical perspectives into account. In a lengthy article entitled “A Critique of Criticism” – which less than a month after the incident occupied more than half a page in the Kulturni razgledi (“Cultural perspectives”) section of the newspaper’s 8 April 1956 issue – he wrote, among other things: I believe that the essential weakness of our cultural criticism lies in the fact that it does not treat each individual work as a whole and review it in terms of its general social role but, instead, attempts to separate the “aesthetic” part, one might even say the craftsmanship, which is held to be the subject of art criticism, from the general social importance of the work, something which should be addressed (preferably as little as possible!) by “political” critics. [. .] The Tone Tomšič Academic Choir celebrated its 10th anniversary with choral works. One would have expected the essential focus of criticism to have been on the fact that such a choir, given its character and its name, should have said something new, something progressive with its song. The critics, however, spoke only about the sound and the harmony of the voices. They also spoke in general terms of the problem of composing individual song cycles, while avoiding the idea that the battle for the old rights did not consist of petitions to heaven, but instead was difficult and cruel. Criticism of this kind is, of course, of no benefit to the Academic Choir, since it is not the job of critics merely to offer formal praise. Instead, criticism should help the choir take a better path, towards greater successes, for which the question of whether this movement will be more or less fortissimo is not the most important thing.39 38 However, the critics back then “understood” the event in a slightly different way, linking his resignation with his acceptance of the position of director of the Ljubljana Festival. Gobec would therefore no longer have enough time to run the choir. S. B., “Pro et contra, Peti in peti,” Tribuna 5, no. 14 (1957): 4. 39 Sergej Vošnjak, “Kritika kritike,” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 83 (1956): 6. 236 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. This appeal seems to have found its mark, since the earlier professional reviews that were considered too favourable to Tomc now gave way to a “better” type of criticism, in other words criticism that was primarily concerned with sociopolitical reality. I should mention that the majority of the later critics remain anonymous, since their initials, which only appear in newspapers on a few occasions following Vošnjak’s intervention, do not allow us to establish their identities. Thus it was that a work that had previously been described as Tomc’s “mighty cantata”40 was henceforth, in the articles that followed Vošnjak’s appeal, deliberately painted with the colours of mediocrity. In order to illustrate even more clearly what a significant change of attitude this was, I should quote a few extracts from news items published in the wake of Vošnjak’s piece: “Last November the choir counted ninety-four members. Today its numbers have fal en below seventy. ”41 The same author writes that “Fol owing this months-long crisis, the conductor Janez Bole has at last taken pity on the choir.”42 The daily press included headlines such as “Out of the Darkness, ”43 reflecting the view that “the culture of Slovenian choral singing is today greatly diminished despite receiving generous financial support.”44 The initial reviews of Tomc’s work – too favourable and insufficiently socially engaged – thus had to make way for “more appropriate” criticism bemoaning the fact that such a revolutionary ensemble should have chosen to mark its 10th anniversary by singing “chorales” and “petitions to heaven.”45 Tomc originally intended to reply, via the newspapers, that no more than eighteen bars of music in the entire two-hour work could be described as a “chorale”, or, more accurately, as music of religious content, and that even this passage could only be characterised as sacred music by virtue of the nature of Aškerc’s text. The passage in question appears in the fifth movement (passage 4), entitled Tlaka (“Serfdom”). 40 J. P., “Pred jubilejnim koncertom,” 4. 41 Signed by an anonymous writer with the initials S. B. whose identity remains unknown. S. B., “Ven iz teme,” 4. 42 S. B., “Pro et contra,” 4. 43 S. B., “Ven iz teme,” 4. 44 BP, “Pojó, pojó, da še nikdar tako …,” 5. 45 Vošnjak, “Kritika kritike,” 6. 237 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today # p 4 Calmly but always ironically (not too slow) & ### c œ  œœ ‹ œœ # œ œ œ œ œ œ ‹œ œ #œ #. ‹œ œœ So, sure - ly you've said nine rose - ma - ries to - day, for ? # #œ #œ #œ. ### œ c #œ œ nœ    #œ œ # œ #œ # œ #œ œœ œ œ #œ p #œ So, sure - ly # - - - - F & ### # œ œ œ œ nœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ #nœœ nœ # œœ #œ you are a ho - ly man, long may you pray, now ? # œ nœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ  œ œ œ nœ œ œ ###  œ #œ œ  œ œ œ #œ œ - œ - - - F # ^  ^ ^ ^ ^ & ###  œ œ œ nœ #œ nœ œ nœ œ œ n œ œ œ # œ n œ œ nœ n œ #œ nnœ bnœ nœ bœ # œ nœ # œ our backs can feel the load, oh Lord, now our backs can œ bœ œ ? # œ n œ œ œ nœ #œ œ nœ #œ ### œ nœ œ  œ œ nœ œ œ bœ nœ œ bœ #œ v  #œ nœ v v v v they imitate (not too fast) # - - subito π 3 j 3 3 j j & ### bnœ œ bnœ nnœ # j  n  j œ j œ I  œ œ œ jœ jœ I œ jœ jœ œ jœ œ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ feel the load, oh- - Lord. And in church yes- ter-day how I did see you sigh, oh  j j j ? # nœ œ œ #w   œ œ œ jœ jœ jœ jœ jœ j œ jœ œ ### nœ #œ œ n œ œ ##w  œ œ œ jœ I I Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ J π Jœ Jœ Jœ 3 3 3 Ritt. 3 3 3 p # j j j r 3 j 3 j & ### œ jœ jœ j œ jœ œ j œ rœ œ jœ jœ œ jœ j I œ jœ jœ œ œ œ œ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ œ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Rœ Rœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ œ 3 I beat them too lit - tle, you seemed to cry, kneel-ing j j j there in the pew near the al - tar! œ j r jœ jœ jœ jœ j j ? # œ jœ jœ jœ jœ j œ jœ œ œ rœ œ jœ 3 #œ #œ œ ### œ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ œ I Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Rœ Rœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ œ œ 3 3 3 p 3 3 Example 1: Stara pravda , movement 5 (“Serfdom”), passage 4. 238 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. In this passage, Aškerc mentions how the lord of the manor oppress-es his serfs by having them beaten. It is, of course, possible that one of the party grandees present at the concert saw an allusion to themselves in this section of the cantata. It should be pointed out that the memory of post-war revolutionary violence was still very much alive, particularly in Catholic circles. In reply to Vošnjak’s “critique of criticism”, Tomc intended to write that the controversial passage, supposedly a “manifestation of reactionary, anti-popular tendencies,” was actually marked in the score with the words “ironically” and “mockingly”. In the last three bars of this passage, in fact, the choir – representing the peasants – sings a recitative in mocking imitation of the lord of the manor. Tomc later thought better of it, however, since writing such a letter, which in all likelihood would not have been published anyway, may only have made matters worse.46 The view that Vošnjak’s article was a milder version of Zhdanovite cultural-political score-settling was clearly expressed by the composer Marijan Lipovšek in his own reply in Slovenska glasbena revija (“Slovenian Music Review”).47 Lipovšek was the only member of the musical, Catholic and intellectual elite who dared pen a public condemnation of what he considered a questionable attempt at political interference in the daily press: Critics failed to evaluate this work correctly. Those who reviewed it unfortunately included journalists who attempted, with amateurish observations, not only to belittle the composition but also to impute “religious” intentions to Tomc that he undoubtedly did not have. In doing so, they uttered such nonsense that it was, of course, clear as day to us musicians where all this was going. The general public, however, which has respect for the musical problems of composition but also, of course, for journalists, particularly when the journalist is the editor-in-chief of one of the country’s two biggest newspapers, likes to believe that things are as the journalist says they are, especially when it is easier and saf-er to put one’s tail between one’s legs. And that is what the majority of our critics did. 48 In an earlier edition of Slovenska glasbena revija, Lipovšek wrote: It is my understanding that Tomc is not employed in a position that corresponds to his talent, his industry and his past achievements 46 Kmecl, “Vrtičkarjevi zimski dnevi,” 38. 47 Lipovšek, “Koncertna sezona 1955/56,” 15. 48 Ibid. 239 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today as a composer. To banish such a composer to a lower gymnasium in Domžale is the very height of shortsightedness. This is not how culture is supported.49 Open controversy was, of course, disagreeable to party apparatchiks, with the result that even Lipovšek soon had to stop speaking out on the matter. Despite the apparently softer positions with regard to the Catholic intelligentsia that had been adopted that same year at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the League of Communist of Slovenia,50 the authorities interpreted the whole affair as an attempt at strengthening Catholic ideological influence. At a meeting of the executive committee of the Central Committee of the Slovenian Union of Communists on 29 October 1956, it was agreed that concessions could be made on some issues, and that certain rules on the religious press, monument protection, church buildings, etc., could be relaxed. Decades later, in 1973, a year that saw numerous celebrations of the fourth centenary of the peasant revolts in Slovenia, Tomc wrote a letter to Radovan Gobec that appears to have been dictated by long-standing bitter-ness (following the incident at the premiere, Stara pravda was never again included in a concert programme). In it, he writes with some resignation: That even this year there would be no performance of Stara pravda was immediately obvious to me as soon as I saw the composition of the commission responsible for organising all this year’s celebrations.51 Decisions on the suitability of individual works and artists were taken by ideological commissions. In 1973 Tomc probably believed that the “qualified public” might have come to its senses by then, and that in the more liberal times that followed the government of Stane Kavčič, in the huge enthusiasm surrounding the celebrations of the peasant revolts, someone might have remembered his cantata. Yet it was not to be. As a result of the affair Tomc was compelled to withdraw from public life, while the two key figures in the regime’s cultural and political operation, Vošnjak as editor of Slovenia’s main daily newspaper and Ziherl as president of the ideological commission of the Central Communist Com-49 Marijan Lipovšek, “Iz našega glasbenega življenja. Edicije DZS,” Slovenska glasbena revija 3, no. 1–2 (1955): 41. 50 Aleš Gabrič, Socialistična kulturna revolucija. Slovenska kulturna politika 1953–1962 (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1995), 185. 51 A letter from Matija Tomc to Radovan Gobec (Domžale, 1973) is preserved by Gobec’s wife, Jožica Gobec. 240 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. mittee, both went on to occupy key positions in the former regime. Vošnjak, for example, became the director of the Government Information Office, while Ziherl became the Minister for Science and Culture of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The affair did not, of course, only involve these two individuals, but the entire broad spectrum of apparatchiks who controlled almost all the key positions in the former regime. Tomc’s artistic liquidation was, in the first place, about settling scores with the clergy,52 which, with its criticism of communist ideology, was a thorn in the side of every socialist regime. It was also about imposing discipline on the critical sphere by presenting “more appropriate” sociopolitical guidelines for critical writing. The critics who announced the premiere of Stara pravda were considered incapable of showing sufficient insight into the social uselessness of merely “aesthetic” writing and, consequently, unable to offer an adequate political condemnation of “deviant” social phenomena. As a result, these critics, who before the premiere came for the most part from professional circles, were forced to give way to anonymous “sociopolitical workers”53 otherwise second-class critics who, taking into account above all the “social usefulness of the work”, gave a “more correct” assessment of the event in question. In this case, then, effective agitation also required the setting of new, more appropriate evaluation criteria. It should be stressed that the main music critics at the time (including Danilo Švara, Pavel Šivic, Uroš Prevoršek and Valens Vodušek), who covered concert and opera performance extensively in the daily newspapers Slovenski poročevalec and Ljubljanski dnevnik, did not cover the above incident and thus did not tread on the slippery surface of socialist-realist social demands. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that the treatment of Tomc represents one of the rare examples of direct, public interventions by the socialist regime in the sphere of music. For the most part, the authorities preferred to avoid public controversy in this regard. Maintaining its quasi-Western appearance of democratic socialism, the regime gave the outward impression that the decisions of artists, including musicians, were entirely autonomous, while at the same time ensuring via various mechanisms – including ideological commissions, the allocation of funds, the 52 At least two of his peers found themselves in a similarly unenviable situation as Tomc soon after the end of the Second World War: Stanko Premrl and Alojzij Mav. Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” 141–2. 53 Journalists were perceived by the socialist regime as being primarily cultural and political workers. 241 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today granting of travel permits and more or less emphatic warnings – that artists exercised a sufficient degree of self-censorship. Accordingly, it did not take much, in a small and provincial environment like Slovenia, to imprint a fear of sanctions in the minds of the vast majority of the population. Not even artists, performers and in some cases critics were immune to this fear, and all were careful not to cross the various red lines. Although the socialist reality of Slovenia at that time did not see artistic liquidations, deportations or censorship such as those endured by artists in the most brutal dictatorial regimes of the period, especially in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the tendencies were essentially identical – the subjection of all segments of society, including music criticism, which with its broader social role, as one of the more important influencers of public opinion, was evidently seen by the regime as not insignificant. It seems that Tomc and Aškerc were thus less disreputable in a musical or literary context for the authorities of the time than Shostakovich and Leskov (the author of the powerful and brutal novel Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk) were in Russia. In the second half of the 1950s, the new authorities in Slovenia managed to give the impression that musicians took quite autonomous decisions. This “soft regime” deliberately used more or less covert methods. This was a deliberate accommodation to preserve power and ensure stronger support from the West. Ostensibly, the authorities thus washed their hands and, at the same time, strengthened their faultless self-image. The scope of society’s ideological supervision was thus seemingly withdrawn from the directly creative sphere, although it remained everywhere else, both at the institutional level in culture and education and, of course, in the policy towards individuals. It is worth emphasising that Tomc certainly had no intention of using coded language, as Shostakovich did in some of his symphonies, to subtly draw attention to evident injustices and repression on the part of the regime. As part of a cantata lasting more than two hours, the controversial section of the Tlaka movement passes practically unnoticed and cannot have been a reason for anyone to feel genuinely scandalised. However this seemed enough for the incident to have consequences in the field of music criticism. Following its notorious premiere, Tomc’s Stara pravda would not be performed again until 1980,54 when it was sung by the choir 54 The cantata was not performed again until 16 May 1980 at a concert given by Consortium musicum under the baton of Mirko Cuderman, ( Concert for the 80th birthday of the composer Matija Tomc, 16 May 1980, Ljubljana, Consortium musicum Society) and then on 14 May 2006 as part of the Slovenian Philharmonic’s Vocal cycle. 242 “a critique of criticism”: an attempt to outline “more appropriate” .. Consortium musicum, in a period that saw the first stirrings of the winds of change that in 1991 would eventually lead Slovenia to independence. The latter event, of course, brought with it different, more liberal views of music criticism. Along with freedom, however, certain other challenges appeared which both musical culture and music criticism continue to face today. Bibliography Literature Drnovšek, Darinka. Zapisniki politbiroja CK ZPS/ZKS 1945–1954. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2000. Frolova-Walker, Marina. “Socialist Realism in Music, Globally.” A Royal Musical Association-affiliated one-day conference hosted by the University of Cambridge and Universität Leipzig, July 1, 2022, virtual. Gabrič, Aleš. Socialistična kulturna revolucija. Slovenska kulturna politika 1953– 1962. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1995. Klemenčič, Ivan. “Glasba in totalitarna država na Slovenskem.” In Temna stran meseca: kratka zgodovina totalitarizma v Sloveniji 1945–1990, edited by Drago Jančar, 321–33. Ljubljana: Nova revija, 1998. Kumer, Zmaga. Matija Tomc. Koncert ob desetletnici zbora in v počastitev stoletnice rojstva Antona Aškerca. Ljubljana, 12 March 1956 [a concert programme of the choir APZ Tone Tomšič]. Moličnik Šivic, Simona. Mladi že 80 let: Akademski pevski zbor »Tone Tomšič«. Ljubljana: Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, 2006. O’Loughlin, Niall. Novejša glasba v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000. Stefanija, Leon. “Totalitarnost režima in glasba.” In In memoriam Danilo Pokorn, edited by Nataša Cigoj Krstulović, Tomaž Faganel and Metoda Kokole, 135– 46. Ljubljana: Muzikološki inštitut ZRC SAZU, 2004. Škulj, Edo. “Tomčeve kantate.” Tomčev zbornik, edited by Edo Škulj, 13–22. Ljubljana: Družina, 1997. Tomc, Matija. Uglasbitev Stare pravde. Koncert ob osemdesetletnici skladatelja Matije Tomca. Ljubljana, 16 May 1980 [a concert programme of the Consortium musicum Society]. Weiss, Jernej. “Vprašanje avtonomnosti glasbene kritike v slovenskem dnevnem časopisju ob praizvedbi kantate ‘Stara pravda’ Matije Tomca: med estetsko sodbo in političnim konstruktom” [Functional and The Consortium musicum choir once again participated in the performance, performing the cantata together with the Slovenian Chamber Choir under the baton of Mirko Cuderman ( 8th concert of the Vocal cycle of the Slovenian Chamber Choir, 14 May 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenian Philharmonic). 243 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today autonomous in music at the premiere of Matija Tomc’s cantata Stara pravda]. De musica disserenda 3, no. 1 (2007): 101–15, https://doi.org/10.3986 /dmd03.1.09. Periodicals Anon. “Akademski pevski zbor v jubilejnem letu.” Slovenski po-ročevalec 16, no. 226 (27 September 1955): 4. http://www.dlib .si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-KZVEQZGV. Anon. “Jubilejni koncert APZ.” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 61 (13 March 1956): 8. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-75WMOAJR. BP. “Pojó, pojó, da še nikdar tako …” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 62 (14 March 1956): 5. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-PI7QG7B7. Gabrič, Aleš. “Zajčeva Požgana trava v očeh partijskih ideologov.” Nova revija 13, no. 147–148 (1994): 162–9. Gregorc, Jože. “Jubilejni koncert ob desetletnici Akademskega pevskega zbora.” Ljubljanski dnevnik 6, no. 67 (1956): 4. J. P. “Pred jubilejnim koncertom.” Ljubljanski dnevnik 6, no. 58 (8 March 1956): 4. Kmecl, Matjaž. “In memoriam Radovan Gobec (1. 6. 1909–14. 4. 1995).” Naši zbori 47, no. 1–3 (1995): 1. Kmecl, Matjaž. “Vrtičkarjevi zimski dnevi.” Sobotna priloga, Delo 42, no. 12 (2000): 38. Lebič, Lojze. “Glasovi časov (II). O slovenski glasbeni ustvarjalnosti.” Naši zbori 45, no. 5–6 (1993): 114. Lipovšek, Marijan. “Koncertna sezona 1955/56.” Slovenska glasbena revija 4, no. 1 (1957): 13–5. Lipovšek, Marijan. “Iz našega glasbenega življenja. Edicije DZS.” Slovenska glasbena revija 3, no. 1–2 (1955): 37–41. Pahor, Karol. “Kriza v naši zborovski glasbi.” Naši zbori 7, no. 3 (1952): 6–8. Pogačnik, Bogdan. “Pred jubilejnim koncertom Akademskega pevskega zbora.” Tedenska tribuna 4, no. 10 (8 March 1956): 9. Ravnik, Janko. “Še nekaj besed o krizi v zborovski glasbi.” Naši zbori 8, no. 1–2 (1953): 2–3. S. B. “Pro et contra, Peti in peti.” Tribuna 5, no. 14 (1957): 4. S. B. “Ven iz teme. Ob XII. občnem zboru Akademskega pevskega zbora ‘Tone Tomšič’.” Tribuna 5, no. 16–17 (1957): 4. Vošnjak, Sergej. “Kritika kritike.” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 83 (1956): 6. 244 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.245-260 Symphonic Matinees of Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia: The First Two Decades1 Tjaša Ribizel Popič Univerza v Ljubljani University of Ljubljana The main focus of my paper is the analysis of music criticism of the concerts of the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia – more accurately, the Symphonic Matinees performed in the period from their beginnings in the 1970s to the 1990s. Due to the vast amount of material, I decided to only include the first two decades of music criticism on the Symphonic Matinees, and also to include the year 1991, to include the year of Slovenia’s independence. The paper consists of two main segments. In the first part, I present the early stages of the Symphonic Matinees, summarising the surviving archives from the archives of Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia and secondary literature, in particular by the 25th- and 50th-anniversary issues of the Glasbena mladina magazine. The second part gives the data on the different aspects of individual performances of the concert programme: the date (year) of the performance, author, publication, and the critical reception. On the basis of this data, I aim to discern the main trends in music criticism in the Glasbena mladina magazine (hereinafter referred to as GM), which began publication in May 1970, and in the daily press – the two daily newspapers that were published continuously during the period under consideration, i.e. Delo and Dnevnik. 1 1 The underlying research for this article was carried out within the framework of the project The Music of Youth after 1945 and the Musical Youth of Slovenia (J6-3135). The research project is (co-)funded by the Slovenian Research Agency. 245 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today I. Symphonic matinees or symphonic concerts for young audiences2 are a regular feature of the concert programmes of the Jeunesses Musicales Slove-nia3. The origins of matinees date back to the 1970s, but in the early years, they did not yet hold a permanent title. According to secondary sources, these concerts were simply called “symphony concerts for the youth, concerts with orchestras, ” but they were already furnished with commentaries, as were the consequent matinees. The commentary was intended to help the audience follow the concert and understand what they were listening to. Symphonic concerts for the youth have a rich history. Until 1970 they were organised by the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra, and from 1970 onwards by the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia is credited as the organis-er.4 In the beginning, the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia worked in unison with the national broadcasting service of Slovenia (hereinafter referred to as RTV) in the organisation of symphonic concerts, as evidenced by the surviving two pieces of correspondence between the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia and RTV. The first piece of correspondence contains the minutes of a Music Youth Programme Committee meeting from 1975, in which the Youth Symphony Concert is mentioned among the proposals for televising broadcasts.5 The second piece of correspondence is from 1976 and contains an invitation to the members of the Music Youth Programme Committee, which records the Symphony Concerts Programme.6 From 1977 there are the minutes of a meeting between the Musical Youth and the RTV Music Production Section on music events in which the RTV ensembles would participate as performers. Specifically, there is an agreement for two symphony concerts on November 14 and December 13, 1977, as well as for the January and April of 1978.7 Another source from the same year records an invitation to all members of the programme committee of the Republican Conference Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia, dated May 18, 1977, which mentions the cooperation with RTV, the Radio Ljubljana Symphony Orchestra and the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra.8 The Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia had been co-2 Retrieved from: “Simfonične matineje GMS,” Glasbena mladina 50 (8 June 1995): 4. 3 Hereinafter referred to as GMS. 4 Anon., “Dolg pogovor – malo o glasbi,” Delo, October 21, 1971, 7. 5 From: The Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia archives, 1977–8. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 246 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades Picture 1: Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia Program Proposal (The Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia archives, 4-1) 247 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today operating with the Slovenian Philharmonic as early as 1974, as the newspaper Delo reported that the concerts for the youth are among the most successful activities of the Slovenian Philharmonic, which takes into account the suggestions and requests of the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia in its programming.9 However, the cooperation with the Slovenian Philharmonic began as a permanent feature in 1980, when the name Symphonic Matinees was introduced for symphonic concerts for the youth. From the 1982/83 season, the matinees were allocated a permanent venue and began to take place in the morning at the Cankarjev dom performing venue in Ljubljana.10 II. The analysis of music reviews of symphony matinees varies in scope, depending on the availability of sources. The sources are more prevalent since the 1980s, due to the permanent title of the event, which makes it easier to find the sources, and the fact that the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia started publishing concert programmes in the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia programme booklet in September of each year. These were supposed to have been published for the first time as early as the 1976/77 season,11 but unfortunately, no programme booklets survived from that season in the Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia archives or in the Music Collection of the National and University Library of Ljubljana; they have only been preserved since the late 1980s. It should be pointed out that the search for music reviews was made harder by the fact that the symphony matinees were public dress rehearsals of the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra before their evening concert. As a result, in most cases, the reviews in newspapers did not give the title of the event as a symphony matinee. Therefore, I searched for reviews that featured the same performers and programme as the Symphony Matinees programme announcement, which was shorter for the purposes of the matinees than the actual evening concert of the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra, on the basis of the available concert programme. This means that 9 J. Z., “Glasba za to sezono,” Delo, September 24, 1974, 8. 10 Retrieved from: “Simfonične matineje GMS,” 4. 11 Personal email correspondence with Dr. Franc Križnar, who served as secretary of the GMS from 1976 to 1984. 248 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades only one concerto or one symphony was presented and that the duration of the matinee was half that of a normal season ticket concert. Within my analysis, I focused on the following four aspects of the collected data: – Number of reviews by year – Number of reviews per newspaper – Author, year, and number of reviews – The author, the newspaper and the critic’s sympathy. To illustrate this trend, I have also chosen some quotes to illustrate the different levels of favour, which also illustrate the analysis in the text. In the following section, I present and analyse the data in terms of these four categories. Number of reviews by year This section deals with the frequency of reviews published per year, and its aim is to discern the overall distribution of reviews over the years. The distribution of reviews is given in Figure 1. Number of reviews by year 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100 1970 1971 1972 1973 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 Total GK Figure 1: Frequency of reviews per year from 1970 to 1991. 249 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today There were over 100 articles published in relation to the activities of Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia from 1970 to 1991. These articles, in addition to music reviews, include announcements of concerts, general assemblies, summer camps, competitions, music quizzes, conferences and congresses of the JMS, and reports on the JMS. There were 71 music reviews in total. The earliest reviews (three in total) date all the way back to 1970, but it was not until 1979 that the number of reviews started to increase, reaching the peak (14 published reviews) in 1983. After this year the number of reviews declined, with only a single review published in 1970. These data suggest that there was a very dynamic period spanning from 1979 to 1985, in which the JMS activities were more extensively covered in the press, whereas the other segments of the period in question saw only sporadic interest of the press. In the following section, I thus wish to determine which publications covered the activities of the JMS to the greatest extent. Number of reviews per newspaper 9 8 7 6 5 Delo 4 Dnevnik Glasbena mladina 3 2 1 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 Figure 2: Number of reviews of JMS per year and publication. As Figure 2 demonstrates, the majority of all music reviews were published in the Delo and Dnevnik daily newspapers, with only two reviews published in the Glasbena mladina magazine. Table 1 gives a detailed account of the 71 reviews by year and publication. As Table 1 demonstrates, out of 21 years within our timespan of interest, there are reviews covering 16 seasons, whereas no records survive for other years. 250 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades Table 1: Overview of music reviews per year and publication Year Delo Dnevnik Glasbena mladina Total 1970 3 3 1971 1 1 2 1972 1 1 1973 1 1 1979 2 6 8 1980 4 2 6 1981 4 4 8 1982 2 5 7 1983 5 8 1 14 1984 3 3 6 1985 2 4 6 1986 1 1 1988 1 1 1989 2 2 4 1990 1 1 2 1991 1 1 The lowest number of music reviews was published in the Glasbena mladina magazine (2). The Dnevnik daily newspaper has the highest number of reviews, with 37 in total, and the newspaper Delo published a slightly lower number of reviews (32), even though Delo covered more seasons than Dnevnik (14 vs. 11). Music critics Table 2 presents the critics and the total number of reviews of JMS performances. Table 2: Number of reviews by author Author Number of reviews Andrej Rijavec 1 Bogdan Učakar 1 Darja Frelih 1 Franc Križnar 15 251 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Author Number of reviews J. H. 1 Kristijan Ukmar 1 Marijan Gabrijelčič 6 Milan Stibilj 1 Pavel Mihelčič 20 Peter Kušar 22 Tomaž Rauch 1 Tonja Gomzi 1 There were a number of music critics who wrote for the newspapers and the magazine Glasbena mladina and dealt with the performances of JMS. Most of the reviews were written by Peter Kušar in the newspaper Dnevnik, followed by Pavel Mihelčič in the newspaper Delo, and then by Franc Križnar and Marijan Gabrijelčič. Other critics, with fewer reviews, were Andrej Rijavec, Bogdan Učakar, Darja Frelih, Kristijan Ukmar, Milan Stibilj, Tomaž Rauch, and Tanja Gomzi. The critic, publication, and critical reception In this section, I present the critical reception of JMS performances by individual critics. The overview is given in Table 3. The green circles denote positive critical reception, orange circles, a neutral one, and the red circles denote a negative reception. Table 3: Critical reception of JMS performances Author Publication Sentiment Author Publication Sentiment Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Andrej Rijavec Delo 1 Milan Stibilj Delo 0 J. H. Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Tanja Gomzi Glasbena mla- dina 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 0 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 0 252 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades Author Publication Sentiment Author Publication Sentiment Marijan Gab- rijelčič Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Marijan Gab- rijelčič Delo 0 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Darja Frelih Glasbena mla- dina 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Marijan Gab- rijelčič Delo 0 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Marijan Gab- rijelčič Delo -1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik -1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Kristijan Ukmar Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik -1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 253 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Author Publication Sentiment Author Publication Sentiment Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Bogdan Učakar Delo 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Tomaž Rauch Delo 1 Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 0 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 1 Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 As Table 3 demonstrates, most JMS performances were rated as positive, both in terms of performance as well as programming. In total 49 performances were positively received, 19 were neutral (or had both, positive and negative things to say about the performance), and no more than three performances were received negatively by the critics. This means that almost 70% of the performances received critical acclaim. The authors summarise the reviews in the following words: I consider it very important that the first concert of the Youth Symphony did not fall behind the regular concerts in terms of quality. I am convinced that young listeners . . will overwhelmingly love serious music.12 12 “Ugotovitev, da prvi koncert mladinskega simfoničnega abonmaja po kvaliteti ni zaostajal za rednimi abonmajskimi koncerti, se mi zdi nadvse pomembna. Prepričan sem, da bodo mladi poslušalci … v veliki večini vzljubili resno glasbo.” “Simfonični koncert za mladino [A Symphonic Concert for Youth],” Pavel Mihelčič, “Simfonični koncert za mladino [A Symphonic Concert for Youth],” Delo, November 10, 1970, 5. 254 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades The Tone Tomšič Academic Choir under the direction of Jože Fürst performed. The tradition of the choir and the name that generations of singers have created over time - all this ensures a high level of quality in choral singing, which the singers confirmed at the concert.13 Uroš Lajovic’s opening performance with the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra of Paul Hindemith’s symphony Matisse the Painter was a serious concert act that placed itself somehow in the gilded middle of our relationship to music. A few years ago, Hindemith would have struggled to qualify for the concert’s main points, today he is succeeding.14 There were 19 neutral reviews, meaning that the reviews of the performances mentioned good as well as negative characteristics in the performances. Below are two excerpts, from 1979 and 1983, respectively, demonstrating the negative aspects of the review. In the first example, the reviewer relates to the execution of the programme, and in the second, to the programme itself. In Beethoven’s Fifth Piano Concerto, it is quite crucial that the pitch settings and the dosage of the ‘sforzzati’ be set with precise and attentive sharpness ... Aci Bertoncelj was not actually expecting an accompani-ment, but a bold thought . . he is yet to play the Fifth Concerto as he can and wants.15 Once again, we have witnessed a concert programme devoid of domestic creativity, even though the decree establishing the Slovenian Philharmonic in 1947 places the performance of domestic music at the top of its agenda.16 13 “Nastopil je Akademski pevski zbor Tone Tomšič pod vodstvom Jožeta Fürsta. Tradicija zbora in ime, ki so si ga generacije pevcev ustvarile skozi čas – vse to zagotavlja vi-soko raven kakovosti zborovskega petja, ki so jo pevci na koncertu potrdili. ” Tomaž Rauch, “Potrjena kakovost [Quality Confirmed],” Delo, May 5, 1989, 10. 14 “Uroš Lajovic je za uvod z orkestrom Slovenske filharmonije pripravil z izvedbo simfonije Slikar Matiss Paula Hindemitha resno koncertno dejanje, ki se je postavilo nekako v pozlačeno sredino našega odnosa do glasbe. Hindemith bi se pred leti še s težavo uvrstil za temeljno točk koncerta, danes mu to že uspeva.” Peter Kušar, “Z davnino, Griegom, s slikarjem Matissom,” Dnevnik, October 2, 1979, 5. 15 “Pri Beethovnovem Petem klavirskem koncertu je pač čisto odločilnega pomena, da nastavke tona, odmerjenosti ‘sforzzatov’ nastavimo z natančno in pozorno ostrino … Aci Bertoncelj pravzaprav ni pričakoval spremljave, temveč krepko misel … kakor hoče in zmore odigrati Peti koncert, našega pianista še čaka.” Peter Kušar, “Osterc, Beethoven, Dvořak,” Dnevnik, October 23, 1979, 5. 16 “Spet smo prisostvovali izvedbi koncertnega programa brez domače ustvarjalnosti, pa čeprav odločba o ustanovitvi Slovenske filharmonije iz leta 1947 postavlja prav skrb 255 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Out of all reviews, only three are inherently negative. As an example, and a point of interest, I have selected two negative reviews penned by Peter Kušar, because it is discernible that in his reviews up to 1983, he was dismissive of music or compositions dating to the late Romantic period and onwards. Below are two extracts from both reviews: Every orchestra has the very human right to be able to do more than just first-class acts. The Philharmonic Orchestra made the most of this right in its Friday performance with conductor Anton Kolar. .a programme which, although it consists of ‘hardened’ points, of music where everything is calm, beautiful and right, but of music where a living coffin would probably not be able to say why the musician has to live for it, in what interesting way it defines his truth and problems and such a programme leads to mental laziness and utterly mediocre satisfaction ... Mahler’s Fourth Symphony ... Marijan Gebrijelčič ... Prelude(a) ... Mahler’s Symphony No. 4 .. 17 Bartok’s First Piano Concerto. The work is a true example of artistic incompleteness, and as difficult as it is to write anything bad about Bela Bartok, this time it will only be a necessity: the piece becomes entan-gled in a certain helpless coarseness, in defiance that has not yet found its fierceness. ... the only thing that might actually be interesting – is the composer’s tortured search for himself. .was only brought out in the two final movements of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony.18 Then, the previously detected deviation cannot be found. To illustrate this, below is an excerpt from a 1985 review: za izvajanje domačih glasbenih del na prvo mesto njenih obveznosti.” Milan Stibilj, “Prva izvedba dela Davida Torazdeja,” Delo, April 12, 1983, 6. 17 “Vsak orkester ima pravzaprav že čisto človeško pravico, da ne zmore le prvovrstnih dejanj. Filharmonični orkester je to pravico na svojem petkovem nastopu z dirigentom Antonom Kolarjem krepko izkoristil…program, ki je sestavljen sicer iz ‘utrjenih’ točk, iz glasbe, kjer je vse mirno, lepo in prav, toda iz glasbe, pri kateri bi verjetno živ krst ne znal reči, zakaj mora glasbenik zanjo živeti, v čem zanimivo opredeljuje njegovo res-nico in probleme, takšen program pa vodi v duševno lenobo in skrajno povprečno za-dovoljstvo … Mahlerjeva Četrta simfonija … Marijan Gebrijelčič … Predigr(a).” Peter Kušar, “Slab orkestrov dan,” Dnevnik, April 30, 1980, 5. 18 “Bartokovega Prvega klavirskega koncerta. Delo je namreč pravi zgled umetniške ne-dorečenosti in kakor o Beli Bartoku kar najtežje zapišeš kaj slabega, bo tokrat le pot-reba: skladba se zaplete v neko nemočno grobost, v kljubovalnosti, ki še ni našla svoje silovitosti. … edino stvar, ki bi pravzaprav utegnila biti zanimiva – skladateljevo mu- čno iskanje samega sebe…sta se dirigent in orkester izživela šele v obeh sklepnih stav-kih Beethovnove Sedme simfonije.” Peter Kušar, “Kako ublažiti ‘trdo’ glasbo,” Dnevnik, March 17, 1981, 5. 256 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades The programme of the Friday concert was quite interesting: two Bach works, a concerto and a cantata, then Strauss’s ‘Death and Glorification’ and Mahler’s ‘Songs for Dead Children’ ... I like to praise Hauschild and the philharmonic orchestra very much for the Strauss, because they were even better in the Mahler.19 I could not find a suitable explanation for Kušar’s change of heart, but I can definitely say that from his writing, we can presume that his first negative judgement certainly changed at the beginning of the 1980s and also after that, I could not sense that there was any negative concerning music programme with more modern music. Conclusion Music criticism is important in the context of researching musical practice. It gives us insight into the performance and programming practices of either a period or a particular ensemble or institution. In my case, it was possible to use existing records to establish the beginning of the symphony matinees in 1970, because although they had not yet been known under this title, the sources certainly testify to their existence, and the music criticism confirms it. The 1980s, in terms of the incidence of criticism of symphony matinees or concerts linked in performance and programme to matinees, far outstrip the 1970s, which is, of course, linked to the fact that existing sources on the programme performed are only available from the 1980s onwards. The concerts themselves, however, were for the most part positively received, both in terms of programming and performance and as can be seen not only from the writers’ own words but also from the reactions of listeners at the time. Last but not least, it is important that there were many reviews that most of the writers covered most of the concert events, and that these value judgements were published in the daily newspapers of the time, both in Delo and Dnevnik. It was thus possible to spread awareness of the existence of art music and concert events at the same time through their publication 19 “Spored petkovega koncerta je bil kar zanimivo sestavljen: dve Bachovi deli, koncer-tantno in kantatno, potem Straussova ‘Smrt in poveličanje’ in Mahlerjeve ‘Pesmi za umrle otroke’… Hauschilda in filharmonični orkester zelo rad pohvalim za Straussa, zato ker sta bila pri Mahlerju še boljša.” Peter Kušar, “Mahlerjeve pesmi,” Dnevnik, April 16, 1985, 5. 257 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today in the daily newspapers, and at the same time provide feedback on a particular performance to the performers and authors. Bibliography Archival Sources The Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia archives, 4–1. The Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia archives, 1977–8. Periodicals Anon. “Dolg pogovor – malo o glasbi.” Delo, October 21, 1971, 7. Delo, 1970–1991. Dnevnik, 1970–1991. J. Z. “Glasba za to sezono.” Delo, September 24, 1974, 8. Kušar, Peter. “Z davnino, Griegom, s slikarjem Matissom.” Dnevnik, October 2, 1979, 5. Kušar, Peter. “Osterc, Beethoven, Dvořak.” Dnevnik, October 23, 1979, 5. Kušar, Peter. “Slab orkestrov dan.” Dnevnik, April 30, 1980, 5. Mihelčič, Pavel. “Simfonični koncert za mladino [A Symphonic Concert for Youth].” Delo, November 10, 1970, 5. Rauch, Tomaž. “Potrjena kakovost [Quality Confirmed].” Delo, May 5, 1989, 10. “Simfonične matineje GMS.” Glasbena mladina 50 (8 June 1995): 4. Stibilj, Milan. “Prva izvedba dela Davida Torazdeja.” Delo, April 12, 1983, 6. Appendix Year Title Author Publication Sentiment 1970 Simfonični koncert za mladino Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1970 Prvi glasbeni večer RTV Ljubljana Andrej Rijavec Delo 1 1970 Vzoren primer mladinskega muziciranja J. H. Delo 1 Tonja Gomzi, 1971 Tretji koncert za mladinski Glasbena filharmonični abonma I. gimnazija - Ljubljana mladina 1 1971 Muzikalna polnost Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1972 Premišljeno Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 1 1973 Kam s to muziko Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 0 1979 Uvod s Hindemithom Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 258 symphonic matinees of jeunesses musicales slovenia: the first two decades Year Title Author Publication Sentiment 1979 Slokar in orkester SF Le nazorno oblikovanje Pavel Mihelčič Delo 0 1979 Dešpalj in Bravničarja Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1979 Z davnino, Griegom, s slikarjem Matissom Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1979 Lajovčev Hidemith in Ravel Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1979 Osterc, Beethoven, Dvořak Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1979 Lutoslavski, Andreja Perhavec Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1979 V igri posameznosti Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1980 Tudi Šivica je zmogel Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1980 Z Martinujevo glasbo Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1980 Dva flavtna koncerta Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1980 Osličen koncert mladih avstrijskih simfonikov Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1980 Pet skladb za konec leta Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1980 Slab orkestrov dan Peter Kušar Dnevnik / 1981 Lipovškova z Brahmsom Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1981 Prva izvedba nove Srebotrnjakove skladbe Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1981 Sodobnost in Beethoven Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1981 Hubad s Slovensko filharmonijo Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1981 Kako ublažiti »trdo« glasbo Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1981 Zelo živa »Oxfordska« Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1981 Beethovnova Peta simfonija Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1981 Brahmsov ciklus Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1982 Wislocki in Tomšičeva v poustvarjalnem vrhu Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1982 Bach, Martinu in Šostakovič Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1982 Pastorala za Filharmonike Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1982 Kolar in Žislin Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1982 Trojni Beethovnov koncert Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1982 Ustvarjalen začetek in ne predvsem praznik Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1982 Urpešno tudi s Horvatom Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1983 Prva izvedba dela Davida Torazdeja Milan Stibilj Delo 0 1983 Različnost interpretacij Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1983 Mojstrstvo Milana Horvata pri odkrivanju Prokofjeva Pavel Mihelčič Delo 0 1983 Od Handla do Hindemitha Pavel Mihelčič Delo 0 1983 Dirigentova ustvarjalnost Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1983 Dva Toradzeja Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1983 Slovenski filharmoniki mladim poslušalcem Darja Frelih Glasbena mladina 1 1983 Izvrsten Straussov Don Juan Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 259 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Year Title Author Publication Sentiment 1983 Horvat s solistoma Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 1983 Koncertnentne vzporednice Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1983 Pavel Kogan kot dirigent Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1983 Zadovoljno muzikantstvo Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1983 Z Milanom Horvatom Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1983 Dirigent Milan Horvat in čelistka Jankovićeva Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 1984 Kako animirati orkester Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1984 Radoživa igra Bertonclja Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 0 1984 Ukmarjev koncert Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo / 1984 Dirigent Graf in klarinetist Goričar Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1984 Za Šostakoviča Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1984 Gostujoči dirigent Leitner Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 1985 J. S. Bach in pozna romantika Kristijan Ukmar Delo 1 1985 Uspeh s simfonijo Pavel Mihelčič Delo 1 1985 Programske drobnosti Peter Kušar Dnevnik / 1985 Mahlerjeve pesmi Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1985 Hubad za Šostakoviča Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1985 Filharmoniki z Wojciechowskim Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1986 Romantični Beethoven Bogdan Učakar Delo 1 1988 Beethovni in Beethoven Peter Kušar Dnevnik 0 1989 Potrjena kakovost Tomaž Rauch Delo 1 1989 Letni koncert APZ Tone Tomšič Peter Kušar Dnevnik 1 1989 Različnost ali podobnost Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 0 1989 Ramovševa noviteta in dirigent Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1990 Od Škerjanca do Handla Franc Križnar Dnevnik 1 1990 Simfonični biser Marijan Gabrijelčič Delo 1 1991 Srednja glasbena in baletna šola Ljubljana Franc Križnar Dnevnik 0 260 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-299-2.261-279 What is happening to music criticism? Borut Smrekar Samostojni raziskovalec Freelance researcher “Music criticism is in crisis.”1 “Why do we still have music criticism?”2 “Do we still need music critics? ”3 Articles and symposia with these and similarly impactful titles have been appearing for decades. The situation is no different in the other arts. What Happened to Art Criticism? 4 is the title of a well-known book by James Elkins, for example, and similar reflections are also to be found in the fields of theatre, film, dance and jazz criticism. Not even pop criticism is immune. It seems clear, then, that something is happening with criticism in all the arts. While there may be specific differences in individual fields, in its essential features the situation is the same everywhere. With this paper, I will try to shed some light on the problems of arts criticism in general, while focusing on music criticism when specific characteristics of the field are involved. Signs of the changing role and importance of arts criticism can be seen in the generalised reduction (or disappearance) of cultural content in media where such content has been a constant presence for decades. It is being supplanted by entertainment content with an abundance of visual materi-1 “Musikkritik,” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, no. 1 (2019), https://musikderzeit.de/ausgabe/musikkritik/. 2 Title of a symposium held in Dortmund in 2006; https://www.deutschlandfunk.de /wozu-noch-musikkritik-100.html. 3 Title of an article: FW, “Do we still need music critics?,” Artmuselondon (31 January 2020), https://artmuselondon.com/2020/01/31/do-we-still-need-music-critics/. 4 James Elkins, What Happened to Art Criticism? (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003). 261 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today al, and arts criticism is usually one of the first victims. In his article “The fate of the critic in the clickbait age, ”5 music critic Alex Ross describes the shrinking space for arts criticism in American newspapers and the consequent decline in the number of professional critics. In the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik we read: “2018 was a year of mass extinction for traditional music publications.”6 In this country, too, criticism appears increasingly rarely in our media, and even such criticism that does appear is often written by jack-of-all-trade “experts” who are not actually masters of any field. The drastic dimensions of these changes in Slovenia can be seen even from a fleeting comparison of the cultural pages of the Delo newspaper in the early 1990s, when it was Slovenia’s biggest national newspaper, with the cultural pages of Delo today. Culture is becoming increasingly unimportant and is disappearing from public discourse. The content of criticism is also changing, with the disappearance of critical judgement becoming increasingly noticeable. This is a wider social phenomenon that is not limited to traditional fields of the arts. For example: in the context of the unclear future of popular culture magazine Rol ing Stone, the German music and film critic Andreas Borcholte concluded that critical reporting in the field of music is disappearing everywhere.7 Generally speaking, writing on the arts and music is moving closer and closer to overt promotion. Elkins, for example, talks about “descriptive criticism,” which means describing an event or work without expressing any critical judgement on it. “There is too much positive reporting,” thinks pop critic Britta Helm,8 since critical, particularly non-affirmative reporting in the media is becoming more an exception than a normal phenomenon. This is confirmed, for example, by a glance at Slovene theatre criticism in the 2014– 15 season in the daily newspapers Delo and Dnevnik. On the basis of critical rankings (scores ranging from 1 to 5 stars), the season was apparently “su-perlative, ” although nothing would appear to justify such an evaluation. It is therefore possible to conclude that the rankings were too high.9 5 Alex Ross, “The Fate of the Critic in the Clickbait Age,” The New Yorker, March 13, 2017, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-fate-of-the-critic -in-the-clickbait-age. 6 “Musikkritik,” https://musikderzeit.de/ausgabe/musikkritik/. 7 Britta Helm, “Kritik an der Musikkritik. Musikbransche ist ‘ein fürchterliches Klüngel-Business’,” Deutschlandfunk, September 21, 2017, https://www.deutschlandfunk .de/kritik-an-der-musikkritik-musikbranche-ist-ein-100.html. 8 Ibid. 9 Mitja Rotovnik, “‘Kr neki’ o uprizoritvi + zvezdice = gledališka kritika,” Delo, April 24, 2015, https://old.delo.si/sobotna/kr-neki-o-uprizoritvi-zvezdice-gledaliska-kritika.html. 262 what is happening to music criticism? The reasons for such a development are complex and rooted in profound social changes, the appearance of new media and, not least, the excessive adaptability of critics. The prevailing opinion is that it is the result of an interaction of various social phenomena. The start of this development can be placed in the 1960s, at the time of the pop culture revolution and the gradual affirmation of pop culture as the social and cultural mainstream. This revolution began to blur the boundaries between “high” and “low”, not only in the arts but also, gradually, in every other segment and level of the life of society. At one time this was a very usual classification of artistic genres. The French music critic Armand Machabey, for example, divid-ed music into two major families: higher genres, consisting of instrumental and vocal works, opera and ballet; and secondary genres, consisting of music hall and cabaret shows, together with their substitutes: film, radio, etc. 10 Today the boundaries have disappeared completely, while the arts continue to diminish in importance as part of mainstream culture and are becoming increasingly marginal. The situation is vividly described by the German music critic Ulrich Schreiber: The European musical tradition and, with it, music criticism has ‘gone to the dogs’ and is on a sinking ship. And the iceberg that sank this ship was the pop culture revolution of 1968, reinforced by the events of 1989, by the turning point, by the great capitalisation, in other words the global victory of capitalism.11 Arts criticism may be said to have had its heyday in the print media era. With the advent of television and, later and more significantly, the internet, print media began to lose importance. Western civilisation is already predominantly visually oriented, something that even in the golden age of print media began to be exploited by tabloids with short sensationalist articles and an abundance of visual material. In the digital age, this approach has gained further momentum. The cultural pages of many newspapers, where they have survived at all, are becoming increasingly similar to picture books, to which the articles are then adapted. A general increase in “resistance to reading,” in particular resistance to reading in-depth content, may be observed, with the result that, as Alex Ross puts it, “[c] riticism 10 Cristina Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?” ResearchGate, January 2014, 113, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348175583_IS_THERE_A_THEO-RY_OF_MUSICAL_CRITICISM. 11 Katja Lückert, “Wozu noch Musikkritik?” Deutschlandfunk, Februar 11, 2006, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/wozu-noch-musikkritik-100.html. 263 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today of any kind is increasingly unwelcome at the digital-age paper.”12 Arts criticism does not achieve the desired level of reader attention, which these days is measured by the number of clicks. Newspapers are attempting to compete with the new media by adapting to them and adopting their principles of operation, but for print media this is a losing battle, since all they are doing is renouncing their own characteristics as media. Ross points out that this approach can also be problematic for print media from the business point of view: no one is bothering to ask themselves whether the readers of arts criticism, few in number though they may be, are not also the most loyal subscribers to printed newspapers, who expect to find criticism in their daily paper. A further point is that the internet has permitted a pseudo-democratisation of criticism. These days anyone can write reviews and publish them in their own blog. This means that the selection process that was once carried out by newspapers when engaging critics is absent, with the result that the reader is surrounded by a glut of opinions without any way of clearly distinguishing their relevance. As a result, critical opinions are becoming increasingly unimportant. A similarly important role in the fate of arts criticism is played by capital, particularly in the period since the fall of the Iron Curtain. In the Western world, the arts have become, first and foremost, business. More and more often we are seeing that quality is no longer measured by aesthetic criteria but by profitability, while popularity is slowly becoming the basic value criterion. “When hundreds of mil ions of dol ars have been invested in a celebrity artist such as Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons, it makes little difference if a critic gives them a bad review,”13 says art critic John McDonald. Artists with enough capital invested in them are simply not allowed to be anything other than “excel ent”, lest their “profitability” suffer. Serious criticism can thus be unwelcome. Tabloidisation is also present in this country. Even arts criticism has adapted to an age in which almost every artist past the age of 35 is a “legend, ” when practically everyone is “iconic” and every singer who has ever opened her mouth on an opera stage is an “opera diva.” The author of the previously mentioned article about theatre reviews in Slovenia found that 12 Ross, “The Fate of the Critic in the Clickbait Age.” 13 John McDonald, “The Role of the Art Critic,” Raven, https://ravencontemporary .wordpress.com/portfolio/the-role-of-the-art-critic/. 264 what is happening to music criticism? these reviews contain practically no evaluation, with the exception of the number of stars appearing next to the review.14 This situation, this “dumbing down,” is a consequence of the deliberate cultivation of the good consumer, who is supposed to feel unique, one of a kind, exceptional. Someone, in short, who deserves more and who only deserves the best, where this best usually means the most heavily promoted and the most popular, wrapped up in shiny packaging and, most importantly, not too demanding. In the world of classical music, we have been seeing for some time the phenomenon of “young and attractive” musicians, where the focus of attention is shifting to their appearance, while their musical qualities are increasingly of secondary importance. Criticism is also moving in this direction. At a symposium on music criticism held in Dortmund in 2006, the critic Christoph Schmitz summed up the situation as follows: The music scene, musical life, that was the general assessment, has developed strongly in the direction of the cult of stars. . . . Music criticism today is, generally speaking, all about praising the big stars, but at the same time something that, in musical theatre for example, no longer places the music in the foreground but the staging. And when it comes to staging, no one asks any more whether the music can communicate its own content or if the staging communicates what is actually contained in the music.15 Criticism is therefore adapting to and, to a certain extent, contributing to the present situation, since as a result of its “uncriticalness” it is losing credibility. What is music(al) criticism? Let us now look at what criticism actually is, or rather what it should be. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, we read: Criticism, Musical. The profession of writing about the aesthetics, history, and evolution of music and of reviewing musical compositions and performances in newspapers, periodicals, books, and on the radio or TV.16 14 Rotovnik, “‘Kr neki’ o uprizoritvi + zvezdice = gledališka kritika.” 15 Helm, “Kritik an der Musikkritik.” 16 Michael Kennedy, “Criticism, Musical,” in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 156 265 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today These days we would also need to add the internet. Britannica offers the following definition: “Musical criticism, branch of philosophical aesthetics concerned with making judgments about composition or performance or both.”17 The Encyclopedia.com entry for music criticism reads as follows: Diverse literary genres emerged in the early modern period that voiced opinion on works of music or their performance, and as such constitut-ed the field of music criticism. The genres most commonly associated with such writing in the present day, the formal, critical review of a concert, opera, edition, or recording, were, however, only beginning. The main genre in music criticism as a whole was the essay, usually done in polemical terms.18 Finally, the Music Encyclopaedia of the Yugoslav Lexicographical Institute: “Music criticism: the public expression of reflections on the value of a musical work and the manner of its performance in the daily, weekly or specialist press.”19 From these definitions of music criticism, we may conclude that music criticism has two essential components: – writing about music (a composition, a concert, a performance, a recording) – evaluation The first element, then, is writing, and here it is possible to agree with Alex Ross, who says: “Cultural criticism is a form of journalism – odd journalism, but journalism nonetheless.”20 It is certainly a hybrid genre, which some people would even like to classify as literature or art. In contemporary practice we often find a mixture of very different journalistic genres under the label of music criticism, including news, reports, commentary and reviews. Similarly, in the field of art criticism, Elkins identifies seven types of art criticism, where he particularly highlights “descriptive” criticism as an important product of the twentieth century. The second essential element of criticism or the critical approach is evaluation, and it is here that we find the most problems in the present age. 17 Alan Walker, “Musical Criticism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 8, 1998, https:// www.britannica.com/topic/musical-criticism. 18 “Music Criticism,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/music-criticism. 19 Josip Andreis, “Muzička kritika,” Muzička enciklopedija, vol. 2 (Zagreb: Jugoslovanski leksikografski zavod, 1958), 244. 20 Ross, “The Fate of the Critic in the Clickbait Age.” 266 what is happening to music criticism? I believe that the value judgement is an essential component of criticism or, to put it another way, writing about music without a clear value judgement is not and cannot be criticism. The disappearance of critical writing is a generalised phenomenon. To return once again to the article on theatre criticism in Slovenia, its author found that despite the clear definition of theatre criticism in the Gledališki terminološki slovar (“Dictionary of theatrical terms”), where criticism is defined as “a specialised piece of writing that reports on and evaluates performances in the media,”21 there was no trace of evaluation in the vast majority of examples of criticism he looked at. The only hint of a value judgment came via yet another product of pop culture – the number of stars (1 to 5) which the critic, at the editors’ request, was required to publish alongside each individual review. Without these stars, in the majority of cases it would be difficult for the reader to establish whether the critic’s opinion was positive or negative. The author of the article therefore expressed the principle of Slovene theatre criticism by means of a mathematical formula: “Some bul shit about the performance + stars = theatre criticism.” In the field of music criticism, the situation in Slovenia has not yet become so desperate, at least as regards evaluation, although even here there are signs of development in the direction summed up by jazz critic Ted Gi-oia in his article “Music criticism has degenerated into lifestyle reporting,”22 where he says: “The disappearance of critical judgment from music coverage can be seen across the full spectrum of modern media.”23 We may conclude from all of this that critics themselves are, at least indirectly, contributing to the disappearance of criticism. The importance of art criticism I am certainly not the only person who thinks that arts criticism is important. Its importance is apparent at several levels: in relation to the public, in relation to artists and, last but not least, in relation to the general life of society. It is a fact that today we live in an information rubbish dump. We are swamped by an immeasurable quantity of information of every type, rang-21 Rotovnik, “‘Kr neki’ o uprizoritvi + zvezdice = gledališka kritika.” 22 Ted Gioa, “Music criticism has degenerated into lifestyle reporting,” The Daily Beast, March 18, 2014, https://www.thedailybeast.com/music-criticism-has-degenerated-into-lifestyle-reporting. 23 Ibid. 267 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ing from authentic to fake, from high-quality to utterly worthless. This is above all due to the new media. While things may not have been idyllic even in the golden age of the press, at least every medium had one or more editors responsible for making a selection from amid the mass of information. Readers’ trust in the credibility of the medium was of key importance. The media were well aware of this and therefore had to maintain a certain quality level in order to retain the trust of their readers. In today’s conditions, particularly in the new media, there is practically no selection. Even on YouTube, we find music videos of the highest quality alongside the most amateurish clips imaginable. How is someone who is not familiar with the field but wants to learn about it supposed to find their way through this confusion? No wonder then, that quality has been replaced by popularity, or in other words that quality is measured in quantitative terms by the number of views and likes. Quantitative indicators frequently diverge radically, of course, from criteria such as aesthetic excellence and craftsmanship. Print media, unfortunately, are trying to adapt to online media and looking for ways to satisfy “online taste” in a battle that is already lost because of the essential differences between the two types of media. In such conditions, it is arts criticism that can to some extent guide and educate the public and, with greater or lesser success, effect a selection based on quality. Elena Martinique says: “Criticism has an important role in developing and deepening the work of artists, but also in helping viewers [or listeners] perceive and interpret works of art.”24 In some cases criticism can have an even more important and far-reaching impact. One example of this would be the critical re-evaluation of Mahler’s music in the 1960s and 1970s. The second level is the relationship between criticism and artists. There is no question that it can be extremely useful for every artist to be confront-ed with a critical view of their work. Such confrontation stimulates reflection and self-examination. And what is art if not a constant search? The attitude of artists towards criticism can vary greatly. Many artists do not care about criticism and reject it – particularly negative criticism – a priori, usually on the grounds that it is uninformed or the result of the critic’s failure to understand their work or their lack of erudition. On the other hand I cannot think of an example of an artist who has branded a positive review of their work as uninformed. 24 Elena Martinique, “What is the purpose of art criticism today?” Widewalls, January 14, 2017, https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/what-is-the-purpose-of-art-criticism. 268 what is happening to music criticism? The third level is the function of criticism as part of the general life of society. With the blurring of quality criteria and the dominance of all-powerful capital in every facet of life, criticism is a tiny part of the ecology of the music business, but an essential part. Without smart, independent critics who know their stuff, everything collapses into hype, public relations, and the almighty dollar.25 This aspect of the importance of criticism is more relevant today than ever before. In 2005 art critic Dave Hickey offered the following important warning: “Criticism, at its most serious, tries to channel change, and when nothing is changing, when no one is dissenting, who needs criticism? ”26 His voice joins the ongoing debate about the crisis of contemporary arts criticism. To continue with Elena Martinique: For a long time, art criticism has been perceived as a form of privileged consciousness that provided an insight into the art that required a special eye for it. Art critics served a regulatory, introspective and proscrip-tive function for the circulation and reception of art, and artists often saw their opinions as useful, insightful, or instructive. In this way, art practice and art criticism are supposed to be in a dialectical relationship – to complement each other.27 Hickey is not alone in this view. Cristina Şuteu believes that “[the music critic] must ‘unite’ the artist with the public, and educate the general taste by guiding it into a deeper understanding of the valuable works.”28 Or there is this opinion from the Dortmund symposium mentioned earlier: Jürgen Kesting, one of the invited music critics, states very clearly that without a sense of art, art will be destroyed – he said this freely quoting Goethe – and music criticism promotes a sense of art. Music criticism is thus a form of aesthetic training that leads to correct listening, which controls and improves it, and through this exchange one can penetrate into the mysteries of music. It is also true that enjoying any art without understanding and education is actually not possible. The more you 25 Gioa, “Music criticism has degenerated into lifestyle reporting.” 26 Martinique, “What is the purpose of art criticism today?” 27 Ibid. 28 Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?,” 96. 269 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today know, the more you have heard, the greater the experience, the greater the pleasure in music. And music criticism can also contribute to this.29 Kesting also believes that the music critic today has fallen into a competence trap. [The critic] as careful listener is no longer necessary if one no longer wants to know exactly what is going on. If we no longer want to hear the subtle tones, the subtle observation of how music develops, how it sounds, how voices sound, how they are produced.30 With the tabloidisation of our relationship with the world, interest in a profound confrontation with art is vanishing and criticism is becoming superfluous. One important question – whether, perhaps, the language of music criticism also has to change because the language of culture has changed – was not addressed at the Dortmund symposium and remains unanswered.31 Who should a critic be and what should criticism be like? “Is there a theory of musical criticism? ”32 is the title of a study by Cristina Berengea Şuteu, which includes a comparative analysis of the critical approach of five important music critics of the twentieth century33 who provided their own theoretical presentations of their critical methods. The fi-29 “Jürgen Kesting, einer der geladenen Musikkritiker, sagt es ganz deutlich, weil ohne Kunstsinn die Kunst zerstört wird – er sagte das frei nach Goethe zitiert – und Musikkritik den Kunstsinn fördert. Also Musikkritik als ästhetische Schulung gewisser-maßen, die dazu hinführt, richtig zu hören, die das eigene Hören kontrolliert, ver-bessert und durch die man über den Austausch in die Mysterien der Musik hinein steigen kann. Auch weil Kunstgenuss ohne Kunstverstand und Bildung eigentlich nicht möglich sind. Je mehr man weiß, je man gehört hat, je größer die Erfahrungen sind, umso größer ist auch das Vergnügen an der Musik. Und dazu könnte auch, meinte Kesting, die Musikkritik beitragen.” Lückert, “Wozu noch Musikkritik?” 30 “Dann, eine sehr interessante Wendung von Jürgen Kesting, dass der Musikkritiker heute in die Kompetenzfalle geraten sei. Er als der sehr genau Hinhörende sei nicht mehr gefragt, wenn man es so genau gar nicht mehr wissen wolle. Wenn wir die sub-tilen Töne, die subtile Betrachtung dessen, wie sich Musik entwickelt, wie es klingt, wie die Stimmen klingen, wie sie erzeugt werden, gar nicht mehr hören möchten.” 31 “Aber die Frage, ob vielleicht auch die Sprache der Musikkritik sich verändern muss, weil sich die Sprache der Kultur verändert hat, darauf wurde gar nicht eingegangen. So herrschte eher Ratlosigkeit.” 32 Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?” 33 The study compares the critical approaches of Ernest Newman, Michel-Dimitri Calvocoressi, Oscar Thompson, Armand Machabey and Alan Walker. 270 what is happening to music criticism? nal conclusion of the study is that there is no valid theory. Nevertheless, all five authors have a number of views in common. Although many studies and books have been written on criticism, incorporating presentations of the methods of critical evaluation, it is not possible to talk about any generally accepted rules of the discipline. Ernest Newman, a British music critic writing in the first half of the twentieth century, offered the following reflection: If there hadn’t been a science of composition, if each composer had had to discover everything on his own (harmony, counterpoint, orchestra-tion etc.), things would not have come so far. Perhaps that is why criticism has made no considerable progress, because every critic had to discover its basic principles by learning from his and from other people’s mistakes.34 All the authors agree that the critic should possess broad knowledge encompassing philosophy, aesthetics, literature, history and various other fields, and that formal musical training is a sine qua non for the critic. The critic must win the trust of the public. The reason for this is simple: would you rather be operated on by an untrained quack or a trained surgeon? Would you rather be tried by a reader of the crime section in the newspaper or by a professional judge? Oscar Thompson was of a similar view: Trained criticism is more likely to work for good than untrained criticism; disciplined judgement promises more of what is sound and fair than undisciplined judgement; the professional is more to be trusted than the amateur.35 A survey conducted at Columbia University in New York found that the majority of classical music critics are highly educated, while at the same time almost half of them have performed music themselves.36 Almost all the authors in the study likewise emphasise the importance of experience. The next question we need to consider is the eternal question of whether, and to what extent, criticism can be objective. It is not unusual for critics to have diametrically opposed views on the same subject. The Britannica article on music criticism makes a similar point. Unfortunately, it is difficult to show that a value judgment can stand for anything that is even remotely true about music, as opposed to stand-34 Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?,” 99. 35 Ibid., 106. 36 The Classical Music Critic (New York City: Columbia University, 2005), 48–9. 271 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today ing for something that is merely a personal whim on the part of the critic, since there is no such thing as an organized body of knowledge called ‘musical criticism’. The entire history of musical criticism can be summed up as a struggle to forge itself into a suitable tool for coming to grips with the art of music.37 Various authors have elaborated mechanisms of critical judgement, but none of these attempts has become generally accepted. Despite constant striving for “objective” criticism, it is clear that there is no objective criticism, since criticism is always dependent on variables such as historical context, the critic’s education and training, the critic’s personality and other circumstances. In the words of Ernest Newman: The duty of music critic is to judge correctly and to write well. He treats objective things subjectively. And subjective things objectively. A work remains a value or non-value for reasons beyond the state of mind he is in when he comes into contact with it. It is desirable that in criticism there should be a basic technique, just as there is also a technique of composition.38 In his work Studies in Modern Music, the musicologist Sir William Henry Hadow claimed to have found “the permanent principles of criticism which may enable us to discriminate good from bad.”39 In this country, Stanko Vurnik attempted to introduce a “scientific” approach to arts criticism in the article “Umetnostna kritika kot družabna vrednota” (“Arts criticism as a social value”), which appeared in the magazine Dom in svet in 1926. In it, he attempted to reduce the questions of criticism to the sim-plest possible formulas. He was answered in the same magazine by Anton Lajovic, who was doubtful of the efficacy of simple formulas in the field of the arts and of the ability of rational scientific thinking to address the problems of art. Time has proved Lajovic right, or, as Calvocoressi puts it: “Otherwise, even if we refuse to admit that musical criticism entirely reduces itself to a matter of opinion, we shall remain unable to show that it does not.”40 To sum up: most authors agree with Calvocoressi that “sensibility and a formal musical training are imperative conditions for a critic.”41 In the con-37 Walker, “Musical Criticism.” 38 Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?,” 99. 39 Ibid., 102. 40 Ibid., 101. 41 Ibid. 272 what is happening to music criticism? clusion to her study, Cristina Şuteu states that each of the authors she covers shares the view that formal musical training is a sine qua non in the critical act. Starting from the same premise, their unanimous purpose is forming a viable judgement of value. Between these two coordinates, each author presents their ‘method’ which in their opinion will lead to the establishment of principles concerning music.42 Practical experience of music and the broadest possible education are also desirable qualities in a critic. Rational and emotional perception must be balanced, or, as Oscar Thompson puts it: The critic’s emotional, subjective involvement is allowed, because it is necessary; without such involvement, music could not be experienced, and the critic cannot exclude his feelings entirely in order to be purely objective. However, he is advised to not let himself be dominated by them, and thus become their slave.43 This view echoes that of the seventeenth-century philosopher Blaise Pascal: Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight, and are not used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who are accustomed to reason from principles, do not at all understand matters of feeling, seeking principles, and being unable to see at a glance . . .44 At this point I would like to mention two further important characteristics of the critical personality: ethical integrity and soundness of judgement. Despite the diminishing presence of criticism, the critic still enjoys privileged access to the public discourse. This requires a corresponding sense of moral responsibility. The critic is a judge who expresses aesthetic judgements, so ethical integrity and soundness of judgement are reasonable requirements, although not always evident in practice. The Columbia University survey of music critics includes a special section dedicated to ethical issues. The great majority of critics found the following practices to be “never acceptable”: – making money as a promoter or musician’s agent; 42 Ibid., 124. 43 Ibid., 108. 44 Ibid., 116. 273 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today – selling or offering to sell promotional CDs, DVDs or other videos received for free from record companies; – accepting payment for writing programme notes published by performing organisations you cover; – accepting free tickets for concerts you are not going to write about; – accepting travel expenses or other perks from an organisation connected with something you intend to write about; – sitting on boards of musical organisations. The field of ethics is, of course, wider than this. There is no room in criticism for the critic’s personal grudges and the critic should never lose sight of their responsibility – towards music, towards composers and performers and towards the audience. So what should criticism be like? Evaluation is an essential part of criticism, but the problem with evaluation, as we have seen, is its extremely limited capacity for objectivity. Objectivity can only relate to objective facts (in music these include intonation, rhythm, faithfulness to the score, etc.) and their importance in the context of the accepted rules of the discipline; it can never apply to purely aesthetic categories. On the other hand, evaluation is not possible without criteria, regardless of where these criteria are found. The opinions of “theorists” differ on this point. Some claim that the critic must have predefined criteria, while others say that it is the artistic work that has the criteria and it is the critic’s job to identify them. In all cases, however, the critic must be consistent with regard to the criteria or their identification. The object of judgement or evaluation must be clearly evident in a piece of criticism. It may be a work or performance or both. It is important to avoid going beyond these specific contexts, since this either means stray-ing into another genre or involves a different object of evaluation. Regarding the functions of the critic, it is advisable not to be too ambitious. As Ernest Newman put it: “A critic’s duty is not to foresee the future of music, but to explain the present, and this can be done only insofar as he is anchored in the past.”45 The critic’s ‘mirror’ must reflect the effects of the sonorous phenomenon, and not its causes. It should be descriptive for the reader, and not 45 Ibid., 100. 274 what is happening to music criticism? corrective for the artist. The specialist music teacher corrects the mistakes, whereas the critic only finds them.46 Every value judgment must be justified. The judgement expressed by the critic must be supported by an answer to the question of why they think that way. Criticism must express a clear position and must be comprehensible, which is, of course, the most difficult thing. Only a clear idea can also be a clearly expressed idea. Criticism is aimed at a specific audience and must therefore be written in such a way as to be accessible to the target audience. Calvocoressi says: Thus, for an accurate understanding, the public must be familiarised with the critic’s vocabulary, through his publications. This is a permanent imperative condition for a critic to make himself understood and believed by the public.47 It is also important to take context into account. We cannot judge musical life in Ljubljana the same way we judge musical life in, say, Berlin. We cannot judge a professional ensemble the same way we judge an amateur ensemble. Yet the taking into account of context must be clearly defined in criticism. Criticism in Slovenia The remarks on the development and state of music criticism around the world that introduced this paper also apply to Slovenia, except that the consequences of social changes are perhaps even more evident here than elsewhere. In the years following the Second World War, culture enjoyed a privileged position in this country. This is partly because it was important to the communist authorities as one of the mechanisms enabling the ideological control of society, and partly – perhaps – because of the extremely important mobilising role that culture played during the national liberation war. That is why the present confrontation of culture with the embrace of capital is all the more stressful, while the small size of the Slovene cultural space is an additional aggravating factor. Today the fundamental question for Slovene music criticism is: does it still exist? Like everywhere else in the world, serious music criticism is disappearing from print media and other media. Music criticism has practically been eliminated from Delo, once the country’s most important na-46 Ibid., 107. 47 Ibid., 105. 275 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today tional newspaper. It still appears occasionally in Večer and is most present in Dnevnik. But even in Dnevnik there is no longer continuous coverage of the music scene but, instead, occasional pieces on “more attractive” events. Music criticism has survived on the radio, where, however, it has its own particular problems because of the nature of the medium. It is more difficult to access, because you have to tune in at the right time, while since it is only broadcast once, it is also more difficult to analyse. There are also some websites, such as the Slovene Music Information Centre (SIGIC) with its online magazine Odzven, where music criticism appears somewhat sporadically, and various private blogs maintained by critics manqués. In these cases, however, these are media that lie outside the daily mainstream. Such websites are mainly visited by musicians and cannot reach and address the general public and, in this way, place music among the current topics of daily discourse. In such conditions, it is no longer possible to talk about music criticism as an integral part of musical life and the life of society. The following comments on the phenomenon of music criticism in Slovenia therefore relate to the situation as it was some years ago. Just over 25 years ago, in a paper I presented at the Slovenian Music Days, I talked about the state of opera criticism at that time. In doing so, I made most of the same points that I made in the introduction to today’s paper. It is a fact that we are experiencing the same development as other countries. For this reason, it may be easier to identify the characteristics and peculiarities of music criticism in Slovenia from those aberrations that are impossible or at least very unlikely in other contexts. For example: nowhere else have I seen a newspaper publish a sensationalistic negative review of an opera – before the premiere! – on the basis of a rehearsal closed to the public. Similarly, it is not normal for critics to wreak their anger on blameless prompters, to complain that singers were out of tune when reviewing performances characterised by faultless pitch and intonation, to accuse singers of being vocally weak and inexpressive in roles in which they were “clearly miscast”, and so on. Rhetorical questions in reviews asking why specific individuals were not among the performers are probably another peculiarity of music criticism in Slovenia. For a critic to ask such questions is particularly ethically problematic, given that in most cases artistic directors cannot respond publicly out of consideration for the musicians and loyalty to the house that employs them. The case of a critical overview of an opera season in a publication of the national theatre muse-um in which the central problem of the season would appear to be the ter-276 what is happening to music criticism? mination of the employment contract of a member of the chorus is surely a unique case. I nevertheless believe that a significant step forward has been taken as regards critical integrity. In my earlier paper, in the part dealing with opera criticism, I highlighted the problem of maintaining a healthy min-imum of critical credibility, illustrating it with the example of a critic involved in writing reviews of an institution with which he had, that same season, signed a series of “significant” contracts and received a number of other benefits, all of which was clearly reflected in his writing. The situation has significantly improved since then as regards the avoidance of conflicts of interests. Although we still find examples of a critic being linked, professionally or otherwise, to the institutions he covers, these are quite rare. It should also be acknowledged that music criticism in Slovenia, unlike criticism in certain other fields of the arts, has for the most part managed to maintain evaluation as an essential element of criticism. Despite occasional excesses, I believe that Slovene music criticism to date has fulfilled its role quite well. The question now is where does it go from here? The absence of criticism is certainly not a good thing for the arts, not only for developmental and aesthetic reasons but also as regards placing the arts in the social sphere as part of public discourse. It is time that this were recognised by cultural policy, which should respond, not, as has been proposed, by creating specialised media for arts criticism, welcome though this might be, since this would mean placing criticism under the exclusive focus of the interested public, which is still a marginal position. Instead, we should sub-sidise arts criticism, above all in those print media with the widest circulation and put the arts back on the agenda of socially relevant topics. Bibliography Literature Andreis, Josip. “Muzička kritika.” Muzička enciklopedija, vol. 2., 244. Zagreb: Jugoslovanski leksikografski zavod, 1958. Anon. “Music Criticism.” Encyclopedia.com. https://www.encyclopedia.com /history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/music-criticism. Elkins, James. What Happened to Art Criticism? Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003. FW. “Do we still need music critics?” Artmuselondon (31 January 2020). https:// artmuselondon.com/2020/01/31/do-we-still-need-music-critics/. 277 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Kennedy, Michael. “Criticism, Musical.” In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, 156. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Mazzola, Guerino. “Principles of Music Critique.” In The Topos of Music, 905–10. Basel: Birkhauser, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8141-8_45. Smrekar, Borut. “Opera na Slovenskem na prehodu v novo tisočletje.” In Slovenski glasbeni dnevi – zbornik, edited by Primož Kuret, 134–6. Ljubljana: Festival, 1997. Şuteu, Cristina. “Is there a theory of musical criticism?” ResearchGate, January 2014, 95–125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348175583_IS _THERE_A_THEORY_OF_MUSICAL_CRITICISM. The Classical Music Critic. New York City: Columbia University, 2005. Walker, Alan. “Musical Criticism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 8, 1998. https://www.britannica.com/topic/musical-criticism. Periodicals Anon. “Critical Review Of Music Critics.” The Washington Post. https:// w w w.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1980/07/06/critical-review-of-music-critics/31248df9-7176-446b-b51c-c52dd4589712/. Cone, Edward T. “The Authority of Music Criticism;” Journal of the American Musicological Society 34, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 1–18. Gioa, Ted. “Music criticism has degenerated into lifestyle reporting.” The Daily Beast, March 18, 2014. https://www.thedailybeast.com /music-criticism-has-degenerated-into-lifestyle-reporting. Helm, Britta. “Kritik an der Musikkritik. Musikbransche ist ‘ein fürchterliches Klüngel-Business’.” Deutschlandfunk, September 21, 2017. https://www. deutschlandfunk.de/kritik-an-der-musikkritik-musikbranche-ist-ein-100. html. Kostick, Conor. “The criticism of contemporary music.” The Journal of Music, November 1, 2002. https://journalofmusic.com/focus/ criticism-contemporary-music. Lückert, Katja. “Wozu noch Musikkritik?” Deutschlandfunk, Februar 11, 2006. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/wozu-noch-musikkritik-100.html. Martinique, Elena. “What is the purpose of art criticism today?” Widewal s, January 14, 2017. https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine /what-is-the-purpose-of-art-criticism. McDonald, John. “The Role of the Art Critic.” Raven. https://ravencontemporary. wordpress.com/portfolio/the-role-of-the-art-critic/. “Musikkritik.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, no. 1 (2019). https://musikderzeit.de /ausgabe/musikkritik/. 278 what is happening to music criticism? Nonnenmann, Rainer. “Zwischen Zentrum und Peripherie.” MusikTexte 144 (Februar 2015): 49–56. https://texte.musiktexte.de/mt -144/30/idea l-und-w irk lich keit-grundsatzliches-zum-verha ltnis-von-musik-und-kritik. Ross, Alex. “The Fate of the Critic in the Clickbait Age.” The New Yorker, March 13, 2017. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment /the-fate-of-the-critic-in-the-clickbait-age. Rotovnik, Mitja. “‘Kr neki’ o uprizoritvi + zvezdice = gledališka kritika.” Delo, April 24, 2015. https://old.delo.si/sobotna/kr-neki-o-uprizoritvi-zvezdice-gledaliska-kritika.html. Şuteu, Cristina. “Der Musikkritiker zwischen Rolle und Verantwortlichkeiten.” Studia UBB Musica LXIII, no. 2 (2018): 29–36. Taylor, Mark. “NYT classical music editor Zachary Woolfe on music journalism.” SFCM, January 12, 2022. https://sfcm.edu/newsroom /nyt-classical-music-editor-zachary-woolfe-music-journalism. Wilson, Frances. “Do we still need music critics?” Interlude, Februar 23, 2020. https://interlude.hk/do-we-still-need-music-critics/. 279 Povzetki Stefan Keym Primerjava umetniških in političnih vidikov glasbene kritike: o obravnavi »tuje« orkestrske glasbe v leipziškem glasbenem časopisju 19. stoletja Prispevek ponuja pregled obravnave orkestrske glasbe v leipziškem glasbenem časopisju »dolgega« 19. stoletja (do 1914). Saško sejemsko in univerzite-tno mesto Leipzig se je v tistem času razvilo v središče nemškega glasbenega založništva, časnikarstva in koncertnih prireditev. Prevrednotenje instrumentalne glasbe in zlasti simfonije v najvišjo glasbeno zvrst, ki se je v takratnem času zgodilo v nemški in zlasti v leipziški notaciji, ni bilo zgolj re-zultat čisto estetskih tokov, kot je romantična »ideja absolutne glasbe« (Carl Dahlhaus), in komercialnih strategij leipziških glasbenih založb, temveč je nastalo tudi iz potrebe po identifikacijskih kulturnih prepoznavnih značil-nostih nemškega meščanstva v času, ko je bila Nemčija politično razdro-bljena in jo je ogrožala postrevolucionarna Francija pod Napoleonom. Iz tega multikavzalnega ozadja je nastala paradoksalna situacija, da naj bi bila »čista« instrumentalna glasba po eni strani brez političnih (in tudi patriotičnih) vsebin, po drugi pa služila nemškemu nacionalnemu pono-su. Orkestralna dela »tujih« skladateljev, ki so si od tridesetih let 19. stoletja in posebej v poznem 19. stoletju prilastila zvrstni koncept simfonije, ki so ga razvili dunajski klasiki in kanonizirali v Leipzigu, je leipziško časo-pisje obravnavalo pretežno kritično in jih vedno zelo strogo primerjalo z 281 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today »nemškimi« modeli. Nacionalni in folkloristični tokovi so bili zato prav tako prepovedani kot ukinitev klasičnih oblik v francoskem impresioniz-mu. Takšna presoja se je spremenila šele v letih po 1900. Ključne besede: glasbena kritika, Leipzig, simfonija, nacionalizem, 19. stoletje Luba Kijanovska, Lidiya Melnyk Glasbeno novinarstvo v primerjavi z glasbeno kritiko v današnjem času: med preživetjem in razvojem? Članek ponuja obširen pregled razvoja glasbenega novinarstva in glasbene kritike, pri čemer je poudarek na spreminjajočih se vlogah glasbenega posrednika v različnih zgodovinskih in družbenih kontekstih. Predstavlja tri arhetipske tipe glasbenega posrednika: tip »Hanslick«, ki se odlikuje po strokovnem znanju in pogosto po subjektivnosti, tip »Rellstab«, ki povezuje novinarstvo z muzikologijo, in tip »Beckmesser«, ki se pogosto povezuje s pedantnostjo in pomanjkanjem glasbenega ozadja. Raziskovalno delo poudarja, kako so politične ideologije vplivale na glasbeno novinarstvo, od ideološke propagande v poznem komunističnem obdobju vse do obdobja umetniške svobode in kulturne oživitve po neodvi-snosti Ukrajine v letu 1991. Članek obravnava izzive glasbenega novinarstva v dobi digitalizacije in socialnih medijev, v kateri pogosto prevladujeta ko-mercializacija in lov za senzacijo. Prispevek osvetljuje tudi aktualni preobrat, ki ga je zaznamoval vdor Ru-sije v Ukrajino februarja 2022. Glasbena kultura in njena infrastruktura, vključno z glasbenim novinarstvom, sta postali osrednji tematiki informa-cijske vojne. Besedilo raziskuje nujnost posodobitve zgodovinskega spomi-na in promocije ukrajinskih skladateljev in umetnikov, ki so trpeli pod komunističnim zatiranjem. Na koncu članek navrže še odločilno vprašanje o prihodnosti glasbenega novinarstva in glasbene kritike, še posebej v globalnem kontekstu. Zahte-va nove pristope za učinkovito posredovanje bogate zgodovine in sodobne glasbene kulture Ukrajine domačemu in mednarodnemu občinstvu. Spreminjajoče se vloge glasbenih posrednikov zrcalijo dinamično součinkovanje glasbe, družbe in novinarstva skozi zgodovino. Ključne besede: glasbeno novinarstvo, glasbena kritika, glasba in ideologija, ukrajinska glasba 282 povzetki Susanne Kogler Inovacije, umetnost, družba in življenje: Razmišljanja o preteklosti, sedanjosti in prihodnosti glasbene kritike Že polemika med Giovannijem Mario Artusijem in Claudijem Monteverdi-jem, pa tudi Querel es des anciens et des modernes in estetske razprave v 19. in 20. stoletju kažejo, da so se kritiški spori o glasbi netili predvsem glede vprašanja umetniških inovacij. Sprva so bili vanje vpleteni večinoma teore-tiki in skladatelji, v 19. in 20. stoletju pa so v ospredje stopili tudi filozofi, kot sta Friedrich Nietzche in Theodor W. Adorno. Prav njuna pisna dela jasno kažejo, da razmišljanja o glasbi vedno izvirajo iz družbenih vrednot in do-ločenih stališč, ne le do umetnosti, temveč tudi do življenja nasploh. Nevar-nost ideološke uzurpacije glasbe in njene kritike je postala grozeče očitna v času totalitarnih režimov 20. stoletja. V današnjem času se zdi, da je glasbena kritika ogrožena iz različnih razlogov. Po eni strani ima sedanja preobrazba javnih medijev korenit vpliv na tradicionalne kulturne prakse; po drugi strani pa se zdi, da nihče več ne verjame, da naj bi se borili za »resni-co« nekega estetskega stališča ali določene oblike umetnosti. Poleg tega je videti, da so kakovostne javne razprave na splošno v zatonu. Problematič- ni položaj glasbene kritike torej očitno sovpada s širšo krizo kritičnega razmišljanja in zahodne kulture. S takim pogledom, ki predstavlja moje izhodišče, bom najprej osvetlila družbenopolitične razsežnosti, ki so neločljivo povezane z glasbeno kritiko, na podlagi zgodovinskih in aktualnih primerov. Nato bom razpravljala o tem, kakšno vlogo bi lahko imela glasbena kritika ter kakšne oblike bi lahko prevzela v današnjem času in v prihodnosti. Ključne besede: glasbena kritika, E. T. A. Hoffmann, Claude Debussy, Theodor W. Adorno, Wilhelm Sinkovic Lucija Konfic Glasba v karlovškem tisku 19. stoletja V časopisnih člankih o glasbi in glasbeni kulturi v »dolgem« 19. stoletju lahko najdemo široko paleto podatkov. Po eni strani so odražali javno mnenje o določenih temah, po drugi strani pa so to mnenje oblikovali. Ob tem pomen krajevnega tiska, ki je bil v hrvaškem mestu Karlovac zelo bogat, še posebej pride do izraza, kar se tiče novic o glasbenem življenju in glasbenih pri-reditvah. Poleg časopisa Der Pilger v nemščini (1841–1847) so v Karlovcu v 19. stoletju izhajali naslednji časopisi v hrvaščini: Karlovački viestnik (1861), Glasonoša (1861–1865), Karlovački viestnik (1866), Svjetlo (1884–1905), Sloga (1886– 1888) in Karlovački glasnik (1899–1903). V tej predstavitvi bo posebna pozor-283 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today nost namenjena različnim vrstam časopisnih člankov o glasbi v karlovškem tisku in razponu tem, ki jih obravnavajo. Poskušali bomo odgovoriti na vpra- šanje, kakšne novice o glasbi so dosegle javnost in kako so bile predstavljene, ter posledično, kakšen je bil pomen glasbe kot kulturnega in družbenega de-javnika v mestu Karlovac od začetka do konca 19. stoletja. Ključne besede: Karlovec, glasbeno življenje, časopisi, 19. stoletje Darja Koter Lucijan Marija Škerjanc – kritik časopisa Jutro od leta 1927 do 1942 Lucijan Marija Škerjanc (1900–1973) je bil eden najbolj dejavnih piscev glasbenih kritik in esejev v zgodovini slovenske glasbe in je ustvarjal od konca prve svetovne vojne do zgodnjih sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja. Poudarek je na obdobju 1927–1942, ko je Škerjanc objavil glavnino svojih kritiških prispevkov v ljubljanskem časniku Jutro. Osredotočal se je predvsem na instrumentalne, vokalne in vokalno-instrumentalne koncerte, medtem ko opernim in operetnim predstavam, razen redkih izjem, ni namenjal strokovne pozornosti, morda zato, ker so o tovrstnih glasbenih dogodkih pisali drugi pisci, med drugim Stanko Vurnik, Slavko Osterc in Vilko Ukmar. Njegove objave v tem plodnem obdobju ponujajo izjemen kronološki pregled koncertnega koledarja in splošnega kulturnega življenja v Ljubljani med vojnama in v prvih letih okupacije mesta, ko je koncertna dejavnost skoraj popolnoma zamrla. Škerjančevi kritiški zapisi so komplementarni prikazi glasbenega življenja, umetnosti in uprizarjanja ter evidenca odzivov javnosti (in kritikov) na umetniške dosežke. S svojim kritiškim posluhom je obveščal in izobraževal občinstvo, tako profesionalno kot ljubiteljsko, s svojimi estetskimi in strokovnimi merili pa je pomagal oblikovati odnos javnosti do umetniške ustvarjalnosti in uprizarjanja. Ključne besede: Lucijan Marija Škerjanc, Ljubljana, časopis Jutro, kritika Hartmut Krones Hugo Wolf kot glasbeni kritik v »prepirljivem« Dunaju osemdesetih let 19. stoletja Hugo Wolf je bil od 20. januarja do 24. aprila 1887 dejaven kot glasbeni kritik v časniku rumenega tiska Wiener Salonblatt – internationale Gesel schaftsrevue (»Dunajski salonski list – mednarodna družbena revija«), ustanovljenem leta 1870. Napisal je skupno 112 prispevkov, s katerimi je po-segel v razgreto dunajsko »glasbeno razdeljeno pokrajino«: pogosto se je odprto postavil na stran tako imenovane »nove nemške šole«, ki se je zbira-284 povzetki la okrog Richarda Wagnerja in Franza Liszta, tako imenovane »klasiciste«, kot je bil (predvsem) Johannes Brahms, pa je izrazito zavračal. V številnih kritikah, ki so bile pogosto pretirano sarkastične, se je posmehoval sklad-bam, ki so bile po njegovem mnenju nedomiselne in dolgočasne, druga dela pa je s slavnostnim izrazjem koval v zvezde. Članek ponuja pregled Wolfo-ve estetike, ki se razkriva v kritikah, pa tudi pomen njegovih pogledov na časniško pokrajino avstrijske metropole ob Donavi. Ključne besede: odprava plemstva 1919, glasbena zgodovina 19. stoletja, glasbena kritika 1884–1887, Hugo Wolf Helmut Loos Glasba napredka in prihodnosti: o izvoru silovitega tiskovnega spora v drugi polovici 19. stoletja »Glasba prihodnosti« je bil udaren izraz, ki se je pojavil sredi 19. stoletja in s katerim so želeli v takratnem glasbenem sporu zaznamovati tabor »nove nemške šole«, dokler ga ta ni pozitivno sprejela in prevzela. Richard Wagner je podžgal razpravo s spisom Umetnina prihodnosti (1850) in jo nato še bolj razvnel z odprtim pismom z naslovom Glasba prihodnosti (1861). Čeprav je Wagner v razmišljanjih sledil Ludwigu Feuerbachu, čigar vodstvu se je pod-vrgel »brez kritičnega razmisleka«, je bila celotna razprava pravzaprav v družbi širše zasidrana kot spor o usmeritvi vodstva novega srednjega sloja. Judovsko-krščanska tradicija in ateistično moderno gibanje sta predstavljala dva temeljno nasprotna tabora, ki sta z vsemi vmesnimi odtenki zaznamova-la tudi glasbeno zgodovino. Ključne besede: Ludwig Bischoff, Eduard Hanslick, August Wilhelm Ambros, dekristjanizacija, modernist Wolfgang Marx Glasbena kritika na Irskem Glasbena kritika na Irskem je sledila splošnemu razvoju v drugih državah, zaradi lokalnih razmer pa je imela nekaj specifičnih razlik. To poglav-je obravnava primere iz treh obdobij njene zgodovine: nastanka irske glasbene kritike sredi 19. stoletja, poznega 20. stoletja, ki ga ponazarja kariera Charlesa Actona, in vpliva digitalne revolucije v 21. stoletju. Prve kritike v irskih časnikih so bile zelo nekakovostne, saj so jih pogosto pisali novinarji brez znanja o glasbi. Ocene izvedenih skladb in kakovosti njihove izvedbe so bile neredko medle in neinformativne. 285 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Obdobje, ko je bil Charles Acton glavni koncertni recenzent časopisa Irish Times, je vrhunec glasbene kritike na Irskem. Kakovost recenzij se je bi-stveno izboljšala, Actonov vpliv onkraj strani časopisa pa priča o spoštovanju, ki ga je užival na irski glasbeni sceni. Spremembe v glasbeni kritiki, ki jih je sprožila digitalna revolucija, niso značilne le za Irsko; enako se pojavljajo povsod. Spletna revija, kot je GoldenPlec, je dokaz, da se lahko mali projekti obdržijo le z neplačanim delom, vendar pa neformalna glasbena kritika na družbenih omrežjih presega geo-grafske meje in z lahkoto vključuje ljudi z več celin. Ključne besede: glasbena kritika, irska glasbena zgodovina, digitalna glasbena kritika, glasbena kritika in družbeni mediji, Charles Acton Nial O‘Loughlin Glasbena kritika s pozitivnim namenom: Wil iam Glock in promocija treh skladateljev Po diplomi na Univerzi v Cambridgeu in študiju klavirja pri Arturju Sch-nablu v Berlinu je William Glock (1908–2000), po rodu Anglež, postal glasbeni kritik in je leta 1934 najprej pisal za časopis The Daily Telegraph, nato pa deset let za časopis The Observer, vse do leta 1946. Njegove kolumne se osredotočajo na zelo širok in zanimiv nabor tem, zlasti pa na vrednost številnih sodobnih glasbenih del, ki so jih vplivni starejši britanski glasbeni-ki na splošno podcenjevali. Potem ko je zapustil The Observer, se je posvetil raznovrstnim glasbenim dejavnostim, ki so izhajale neposredno iz njegovega kritiškega dela pri časnikih. Kot direktor edinstvene Poletne glasbene šole v Dartingtonu na angleškem podeželju je privabljal pomembne, večinoma evropske skladatelje, postal je ustanovni urednik vplivne revije The Score and IMA Magazine ter pripravil obsežen pregled nove glasbe v Evropi za tretji program radia BBC. Leta 1959 je bil imenovan za glasbenega ure-dnika pri BBC. Temeljito je prenovil vsebino BBC-jevega tretjega programa in festivala Proms. V oddaje in koncerte je uvajal mnogo drznejšo glasbo, še posebej sodobno glasbo, ki se je takrat izvajala na evropski celini, zlasti dela Stravinskega, Weberna, Schönberga, Bouleza in Stockhausna. Kasneje je postal glavni urednik v založbi Eulenburg Books, ki je izdala vrsto odlič- nih publikacij, večinoma o sodobni glasbi. Na BBC je poskrbel za stalna na-ročila, ki so pomagala številnim skladateljem. Zdaj je imel nadzor nad glasbeno javnostjo v Veliki Britaniji, kar je vzbujalo tudi polemike. Glock je s pomočjo vseh teh dejavnosti posebej poudarjal in prednostno obravnaval tri skladatelje, ki se še niso uveljavili med britanskim občin-286 povzetki stvom: Roberta Gerharda, Elliotta Carterja in Pierra Bouleza, in sicer z nastopi, naročili in pisnimi prispevki. Glock je predstavil Gerharda, ki je imel pred tem zelo malo objavljenih del, v izdaji revije The Score s poglobljeni-mi študijami njegove glasbe, ki je bila prelomna za njegovo kariero. Njegovo ime je prav tako približal glasbenemu občinstvu s pomembnimi nastopi na postaji BBC. Glock je aktivno promoviral tudi Carterjevo glasbo. Prva izčrpna analitična študija Carterjeve glasbe je izšla v založbi Eulenburg pod Glockovim uredništvom in z eno potezo preobrazila sprejem njegove glasbe, še posebej v Evropi. Glock je drzno predstavil Boulezovo sklad-bo Le marteau sans maître na javnem studijskem koncertu, ki ga je časov-no umestil med izvedbi dveh sijajnih Mozartovih godalnih kvintetov. Nato je poskrbel za redno uvrščanje njegove glasbe na pomembne platforme, ki jih je zagotavljal BBC. Boulezova glasba je ogromno pridobila tudi z dve-ma knjigama, ki sta bili izdani pod Glockovim uredništvom. Težko bi pre-cenjevali vpliv, ki ga je imel na razvoj teh treh skladateljev. Vse to je dosegel kot glasbenik, ki je v ključnem obdobju poklicnega razvoja deloval kot glasbeni kritik ter poročal o koncertih, oddajah, pisal osmrtnice in pripravljal kritične ocene skladateljev in glasbenih izvajalcev. Ključne besede: William Glock, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Roberto Gerhard, Elliott Carter, Pierre Boulez Tjaša Ribizel Popič Prvi desetletji Simfoničnih matinej Glasbene mladine Slovenije Koncertni program in izvajalci so bistveni del dejavnosti Slovenske glasbene mladine, namen mojega prispevka pa je bil osvetliti različne vidike posameznih izvedb koncertnega programa z analizo različnih podatkov: časa in kraja izvedbe, avtorja in kritiške recepcije. Na podlagi teh podatkov sem skušala razbrati trende v glasbenih kritikah, objavljenih v reviji Glasbene mladine (GM) in v dnevnem časopisju. Sami koncerti so bili večinoma pozitivno sprejeti, tako z vidika programa kot izvedbe. Treba je izpostaviti, da je bilo recenzij veliko, da je večina piscev zajela večino koncertnih dogodkov in da so bile te recenzije objavlje-ne v dnevnem časopisju tistega časa, tako v Delu kot v Dnevniku. Tako je bilo mogoče širiti zavest o obstoju umetniške glasbe in koncertnih dogodkov hkrati z njihovo objavo v dnevnih časopisih, hkrati pa je bilo mogoče posredovati povratne informacije o določeni izvedbi tako izvajalcem kot tudi ustvarjalcem. 287 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Ključne besede: koncertni programi, Glasbena mladina Slovenije, glasbena kritika, analiza trendov Alex Ross Kritika klasične glasbe: ameriška perspektiva Tako kot pretežno povsod drugje, je v Združenih državah Amerike kritik klasične glasbe postal ogrožena vrsta. Po nekaterih ocenah se v državi z več kot tristo milijoni prebivalci s pisanjem o klasični glasbi v medijih za polni čas preživlja manj kot deset ljudi. Trenutno nič ne kaže na to, da se bo trend obrnil. Po drugi strani je muzikologija postala bolj odprta za javnost kot v zadnjih desetletjih in raziskovalci redno objavljajo prispevke v vodilnih publikacijah na honorarni osnovi. Prihodnost ameriške kritike je verjetno v spoju novinarskega in akademskega diskurza. Kljub temu je novinarska kritika stroka, za katero se je vredno boriti, če nič drugega zaradi tega, ker omogoča intelektualno neodvisnost. Ključne besede: kritika, novinarstvo, muzikologija, ZDA, kriza Bianca Schumann »Katoliška« programska glasba? Osredotočenost dunajskega tiska na religioznost Franza Liszta (1855–1900) Le malokatero vprašanje je v 19. stoletju tako razdvojilo dunajsko koncertno javnost kot polemika o estetski vrednosti programske simfonične glasbe. Ta velika bitka se je bíla v dunajskem tisku: v časnikih so se kresala pogosto polemična mnenja številnih kritikov o tej glasbeni zvrsti, ki se je uveljavila v petdesetih letih 19. stoletja. Zanimivo je, da so bile te recenzije skladb in izvedb v svoji argumentaciji le redko omejene zgolj na vrednotenje glasbene teksture. Recenzenti so se spraševali tudi o estetski vrednosti osrednjih glasbenih zvrsti in o umetniških sposobnostih posameznih skladateljev. V teh razpravah, osredotočenih na avtorje, so bili pogosto v ospredju tudi vidiki, kot je nacionalna identiteta ali versko prepričanje. Prispevek obravnava odlomke teh publicističnih polemik z vidika zgodovine recepcije in se tako osredotoča na eno od »neglasbenih«, tj. biografsko naravnanih meril vrednotenja. Cilj prispevka je ugotoviti, kakšno vlogo je imelo dojemanje religioznih prepričanj Franza Liszta v razpravi o njegovi programski simfonični glasbi; natančneje, za kakšne cilje in namene so nekateri glasbeni kritiki uporabljali to neglasbeno merilo vrednotenja. Ključne besede: Franz Liszt, dunajski tisk, programska simfonična glasba, religioznost 288 povzetki Borut Smrekar Kaj se dogaja z glasbeno kritiko? Zunanji znaki spreminjanja vloge in pomena umetnostne kritike se kažejo v splošnem krčenju in izginjanju kulturnih vsebin v medijih, kjer so bile sicer desetletja stalnica. Dejstvo pa je, da se spreminja tudi sama vsebina kritike. Vse bolj opazno je izginjanje kritičnega presojanja. Gre za širši druž- ben pojav, ki ni omejen zgolj na klasično umetnostno področje. Vzroki za tak razvoj so kompleksni in se nahajajo tako v globokih družbenih spre-membah, v pojavu novih medijev kot tudi v pretirani prilagodljivosti kritikov. Prevladuje mnenje, da gre za interakcijo različnih družbenih dogajanj. Začetek tega razvoja lahko postavimo v šestdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja v čas revolucije pop kulture in njene postopne uveljavitve kot družbenega in kulturnega »main-sreama«. Nadalje je internet omogočil psevdo demokra-tizacijo kritike. Kritike lahko piše vsak in jih objavlja na svojem blogu. Pri tem je odstotna selekcija, kakršno so nekoč nujno izvajali časopisi pri anga- žiranju kritikov. S tem je bralec obkrožen z množico mnenj, pri katerih ni mogoče jasno razlikovati njihove relevantnosti. Prav tako igra pomembno vlogo pri usodi umetnostne kritike kapital, še zlasti v obdobju po padcu že-lezne zavese. Umetnost je v zahodnem svetu postala predvsem in zlasti po-sel. Kakovost se vse bolj pogosto ne meri več z estetskimi kriteriji, pač pa z donosnostjo in zlagoma postaja popularnost temeljno vrednostno merilo. Ob brisanju kakovostnih meril in vsemogočni prevladi kapitala v vseh po-rah družbenega življenja je » kritika droben del ekologije glasbenega posla, vendar bistveni del«. Ključne besede: kritika, glasba, umetnost, tabloidizacija Viktor Velek Emil Břetislav Lvovský (1857–1910): Kdo je bil najostrejši kritik Antona Dvořáka na Dunaju? Študija je prvi poskus celovite biografije pomembne osebnosti češke in avstrijske glasbene publicistike na prelomu iz 19. v 20. stoletje. V uvodu oriše stanje raziskav in poda osnovne biografske podatke. Soočanje s starejšimi slovarskimi gesli je privedlo do številnih dopolnitev, izboljšav in poprav-kov, hkrati pa je sprožilo več hipotez na področjih, kjer je življenje Břetislava Lvovskega še vedno premalo dokumentirano. Njegove aktivnosti v Lvovu, na Dunaju in v Berlinu so predstavljene kronološko. Podrobno je predstavljeno njegovo novinarsko delo za praško glasbeno revijo Dalibor (poročila iz Lvova in Dunaja); v primeru revije Österreichische Musik– 289 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today und Theaterzeitung se študija opira na novejše raziskave, na podlagi katerih je bilo mogoče izpeljati splošne zaključke. Omenjene so tudi pedagoške in skladateljske dejavnosti Lvovskega ter njegovi stiki z osebnostmi češke glasbene scene. Avtor študije pripravlja tudi nadaljevanje, osredotočeno na Lvovskega kot skladatelja, in katalog njegovih del. Ključne besede: Emil Břetislav Lvovský, glasba, Praga, Lvov, Dunaj, glasbeno novinarstvo Jernej Weiss »Kritika kritike«: Poizkus določitve »ustreznejših« družbenopolitičnih smernic v glasbeni kritiki po drugi svetovni vojni na Slovenskem Akademski pevski zbor Tone Tomšič, eden izmed najuspešnejših slovenskih zborovskih sestavov, je leta 1956 sklenil 10-letnico svojega delovanja obeležiti z jubilejnim koncertom. Gobec je kot zborovodja sprejel odločitev, da naj bi na omenjenem slavnostnem koncertu po možnosti izvedli katero izmed izvirnih slovenskih celovečernih skladb, zato se je že oktobra 1954 oglasil pri skladatelju Matiji Tomcu kot »staremu prijatelju APZ in Marol-tovemu sodelavcu« s prošnjo za uglasbitev. Za počastitev omenjenega dogodka je Tomc napisal kantato Stara pravda, ki je doživela praizvedbo 12. marca 1956 v veliki Unionski dvorani. Izvedba je naletela na ostre odzive nekaterih ortodoksnejših marksističnih ideologov, ki so vodstvu zbora zamerili, da je po koncertu počastilo skladateljski prispevek katoliškega intelektualca Matije Tomca. Na zbor so pritisnili tako močno, da je le ta izgubil zborovodjo Radovana Gobca in skorajda razpadel. Oznake so se iz političnega besednjaka kaj kmalu preselile v estetskega. Ta-kratni odgovorni urednik Slovenskega poročevalca, tedaj enega izmed osrednjih slovenskih dnevnih časopisov, Sergej Vošnjak je farso izkoristil kot povod za napad na kritike, ki naj bi umetnost ocenjevali zgolj iz umetni- ških in brez upoštevanja družbeno-političnih izhodišč. V daljšem članku z naslovom »Kritika kritike«, manj kot mesec dni po koncertu, 8. aprila 1956 v Slovenskem poročevalcu med drugim zapiše: » Mislim, da je osnovna sla-bost naše kulturne kritike v tem, da vsakega posameznega dela ne ocenjuje po njegovi celoti, po njegovi splošni družbeni vlogi, temveč skuša oddvojiti neki ’ estetski’ , lahko bi celo rekli obrtniški del, kar naj bi bil predmet umetnostne kritike, od splošno družbenega pomena tega dela, s čimer naj se (po možnosti seveda čim manj!) ukvarjajo ’ politični’ kritiki. « 290 povzetki Tako »incident v Unionski dvorani« ni pomenil le obračuna z duhovšči-no, temveč obenem tudi poizkus discipliniranja kritike, in sicer s prikazom »ustreznejših« družbeno-političnih smernic v glasbeno-kritiškem pisanju. Le to naj ne bi bilo sposobno uvida v družbeno nekoristnost zgolj »estetskega« pisanja in posledično nezmožno politične obsodbe »deviantnih« druž- benih pojavov. Ključne besede: kantata, Stara pravda, Matija Tomc, kritika, po 2. sv. vojni 291 Summaries Stefan Keym Künstlerische vs. politische Aspekte von Musikkritik: Zur Rezeption „ausländischer“ Orchestermusik in der Leipziger Musikpresse des 19. Jahrhunderts Dieser Beitrag liefert einen Überblick über den Umgang mit Orchestermusik in der Leipziger Musikpresse des ‚langen‘ 19. Jahrhunderts (bis 1914). Die sächsische Messe- und Universitätsstadt Leipzig entwickelte sich in dieser Zeit zum Zentrum des deutschen Musikverlags-, Zeitschriften- und Kon-zertwesens. Die Aufwertung der Instrumentalmusik und speziell der Symphonie zur höchsten Musikgattung, die in dieser Zeit im deutschen und speziell im Leipziger Musikschrifttum erfolgte, war nicht nur das Resul-tat rein ästhetischer Strömungen wie der romantischen ‚Idee der absoluten Musik‘ (Carl Dahlhaus) sowie von kommerziellen Strategien der Leipziger Musikverlage, sondern ergab sich auch aus dem Bedürfnis nach identitäts-stiftenden kulturellen Alleinstellungsmerkmalen des deutschen Bürgertums in einer Zeit, als Deutschland politisch zersplittert und vom postrevolutionären Frankreich unter Napoleon bedroht war. Aus diesem multikausalen Hintergrund ergab sich die paradoxe Situation, dass die „reine“ Instrumentalmusik einerseits frei von politischen (also auch patriotischen) Inhalten sein sollte, andererseits jedoch durchaus dem deutschen Nationalstolz diente. Orchesterwerke ‚ausländischer‘ Komponisten, die sich ab den 1830er Jahren und besonders im späten 19. Jahrhun-293 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today dert das von den Wiener Klassikern entwickelte und in Leipzig kanonisier-te Gattungskonzept der Symphonie aneigneten, wurden in der Leipziger Presse überwiegend kritisch betrachtet und stets sehr eng an den ‚deutschen‘ Modellen gemessen. Nationale und folkloristische Strömungen waren daher ebenso verpönt wie die Auflösung der klassischen Formen im französischen Impressionismus. Ein Wandel dieser Einschätzung zeichnete sich erst in den Jahren nach 1900 ab. Schlüsselwörter: Musikkritik, Leipzig, Symphonie, Nationalismus, 19. Jahrhundert Luba Kijanovska, Lidiya Melnyk Musikjournalismus vs. Musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? Der Artikel bietet einen umfassenden Überblick über die Entwicklung des Musikjournalismus und der Musikkritik, wobei die sich verändernden Rollen der Musikvermittler in verschiedenen historischen und gesellschaftli-chen Kontexten hervorgehoben werden. Er stellt drei archetypische Typen von Musikvermittlern vor: den „Hanslick“-Typ, der sich durch Fachwissen und oft Subjektivität auszeichnet; den „Rellstab“-Typ, der Journalismus mit Musikwissen verbindet; und den „Beckmesser“-Typ, der oft mit Pedanterie und fehlendem musikalischen Hintergrund assoziiert wird. Die Forschung unterstreicht, wie politische Ideologien den Musikjournalismus beeinflusst haben, von der ideologischen Propaganda während der spä- ten kommunistischen Ära bis hin zu einer Periode künstlerischer Freiheit und kultureller Wiederbelebung nach der Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine im Jahr 1991. Es werden die Herausforderungen erörtert, mit denen der Musikjournalismus im digitalen Zeitalter und in den sozialen Medien konfrontiert ist, wo oft Kommerzialisierung und Sensationslust vorherrschen. Darüber hinaus beleuchtet der Beitrag einen aktuellen Wendepunkt, der durch den Einmarsch Russlands in die Ukraine im Februar 2022 markiert wurde. Die Musikkultur und ihre Infrastruktur, einschließlich des Musikjournalismus, wurden zum zentralen Thema des Informationskriegs. Der Text untersucht die Notwendigkeit, das historische Gedächtnis zu aktuali-sieren und ukrainische Komponisten und Künstler zu fördern, die unter der kommunistischen Unterdrückung gelitten haben. Abschließend wirft der Artikel entscheidende Fragen über die Zukunft des Musikjournalismus und der Musikkritik auf, insbesondere in einem globa-len Kontext. Er fordert neue Ansätze, um die reiche Geschichte und die zeit-294 summaries genössische Musikkultur der Ukraine einem nationalen und internationalen Publikum wirksam zu vermitteln. Die sich verändernden Rollen von Musikvermittlern spiegeln das dynamische Zusammenspiel zwischen Musik, Gesellschaft und Journalismus im Laufe der Geschichte wider. Schlüsselwörter: Musikjournalismus, Musikkritik, Musik und Ideologie, ukrainische Musik Susanne Kogler Innovation, Art, Society, and Life: Deliberations on Music Criticism’s Past, Presence and Future Already the controversy between Giovanni Maria Artusi and Claudio Monteverdi, as well as the Querelles des anciens et des modernes and the artistic debates in the 19th and 20th centuries, show that critical disputes concerning music dealt in particular with the question of innovation. Whereas at first mainly theoreticians and composers were involved, during the 19th and 20th centuries philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche or Theodor W. Adorno came to the fore. And it is their texts in particular that make clear that deliberations on music are always motivated by social values and certain attitudes not only towards art, but towards life in general. The danger of an ideological usurpation of music and its critique became clearly evident during the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Today music criticism seems to be endangered for different reasons. On the one hand the ongoing transformation of public media deeply affects traditional cultural practices; on the other hand, nobody seems to be convinced any more to be obliged to fight for the “truth” of an aesthetic position or certain form of art. In addition, high quality public debates appear to be generally in decline. Thus, the problematic situation of music criticism seems to correspond with a broader crisis of critical thinking and Western culture. Taking this view as a point of departure, I will first illuminate the socio-political dimensions inherent in music criticism with the help of historical and topical examples. Second, I will discuss what role music criticism might play and which forms it might adopt in our time and in the future. Keywords: Music Criticism, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Claude Debussy, Theodor W. Adorno, Wilhelm Sinkovic 295 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Lucija Konfic Music in the Karlovac Press in the Nineteenth Century Newspaper articles about music and musical culture in the “long” nineteenth century can provide us with a wide variety of information. On the one hand, they were an expression of public opinion on certain topics, while on the other hand, they shaped that opinion. At the same time, the importance of the local press, which was very rich in the Croatian city of Karlovac, especially comes to the fore with news about musical life and musical occasions. In addition to Der Pilger in German (1841–1847), the following newspapers in Croatian were published in Karlovac in the nineteenth century: Karlovački viestnik (1861), Glasonoša (1861–1865), Karlovački viestnik (1866), Svjetlo (1884–1905), Sloga (1886–1888) and Karlovački glasnik (1899–1903). In this presentation, special attention will be paid to the types of newspaper articles related to music in the Karlovac press and the range of their topics. An attempt will be made to answer the question of what news about music reached the public, how it was presented and, consequently, what its importance as a cultural and social factor was in the city of Karlovac throughout the nineteenth century. Keywords: Karlovac, music life, newspapers, 19th century Darja Koter Lucijan Marija Škerjanc: Critic of the Jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 Lucijan Marija Škerjanc (1900–1973) was one of the most active writers of music criticism and essays in the history of Slovene music, with a career that ran from the end of the First World War until the early 1970s. The focus of attention is on the period 1927–1942, when Škerjanc published the bulk of his critical writings in the Ljubljana newspaper Jutro. He focused above all on instrumental, vocal and vocal-instrumental concerts, while, with a few rare exceptions, opera and operetta performances were not the object of his professional attention, perhaps because musical events of this type were covered by other writers such as Stanko Vurnik, Slavko Osterc and Vilko Ukmar, among others. During the present period he published most prolifically stand as a remarkable chronological overview of the concert calendar and of general cultural life in Ljubljana between the wars and in the first years of the occupation of the city, when concert activities came to an almost entire halt. Škerjanc’s critical writings are complementary accounts of musical life, art and performance and a record of the reactions of the public 296 summaries (and the critic) to artistic achievements. With his critical ear, he informed and educated audiences, both professional and amateur, and, through the application of his own aesthetic and professional criteria, helped shape public attitudes towards artistic creativity and performance. Keywords: Lucijan Marija Škerjanc, Ljubljana, newspaper Jutro, criticism Hartmut Krones Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ Wien der 1880er Jahre In der Zeit vom 20. Jänner bis 24. April 1887 war Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker der 1870 gegründeten Boulevardzeitung Wiener Salonblatt tätig. Mit insgesamt 112 Beiträgen griff er in die aufgeheizte „musikalische Parteienlandschaft“ Wiens ein, wobei er offen Partei für die sogenannte „Neudeutschen“ um Richard Wagner und Franz Liszt ergriff, sogenannte „Klassizisten“ wie (vor allem) Johannes Brahms aber deutlich ablehnte. Mit oft überaus sarkastischen Rezensionen schmähte er seiner Meinung nach einfallslose und langweilige Kompositionen, während er andere Werke mit hymnischen Worten in den Himmel hob. Das Referat gibt sowohl einen Überblick über Wolfs sich hier offenbarende Ästhetik als auch über die Bedeutung dieser Ansichten in der Zeitungslandschaft der österreichischen Donaumetropole. Schlüsselwörter: Adelsaufhebung 1919, Musikgeschichte 19. Jahrhundert, Musikkritik 1884–1887, Hugo Wolf Helmut Loos Music of Progress and the Future:On the Roots of a Fierce Press Feud in the Second Half of the 19th Century Zukunftsmusik (“music of the future”) was a pejorative expression that appeared in the mid-19th century and designated the “New German School” in the musical discussions of the time, although the latter turned it into a positive term. Richard Wagner enlivened the debate with his essay Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft (“Artwork of the Future”) (1850) and further fuelled it with an open letter entitled Zukunftsmusik (1861). Although his reflections were inspired by Ludwig Feuerbach – whose leadership he had surrendered to “without critical consideration” – the entire, broad discussion can be placed in the social context of the conflict concerning the direction of the new bourgeois ruling class. Judeo-Christian tradition and atheistic modernity formed two 297 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today fundamentally oppositional directions, which are reflected in the history of music, complete with all their nuances. Keywords: Ludwig Bischoff, Eduard Hanslick, August Wilhelm Ambros, Dechristianisation, Modernity Wolfgang Marx Music Criticism in Ireland Music criticism in Ireland has followed the general developments in other countries, yet with some specific deviations due to local conditions. This chapter looks at examples from three different periods of its history: the emergence of Irish music criticism in the mid-nineteenth century, the later part of the twentieth century as exemplified by the career of Charles Acton, and the impact of the digital revolution in the twenty-first century. In its early days, reviews in Irish newspapers could be of very low quality, often written by journalists without any music-specific knowledge. Statements about the pieces performed and the quality of their renditions were regularly bland and uninformed. Charles Acton’s term as main concert reviewer of the Irish Times marks a high point of music criticism in Ireland. The quality of reviews had improved significantly, and Acton’s influence beyond the pages of his newspaper attests to the regard he was held in by the Irish musical scene. The changes in music criticism triggered by the digital revolution are not specific to Ireland; they occur everywhere in equal measure. An online journal such as GoldenPlec demonstrates how only unpaid work can keep a small enterprise going, yet informal music criticism on social media reaches across geographical boundaries and can easily involve people from several continents. Keywords: music criticism, Irish music history, digital music criticism, music criticism and social media, Charles Acton Nial O‘Loughlin Putting Music Criticism to Positive Purpose: Wil iam Glock’s Promotion of Three Composers After completing a degree at the University of Cambridge, and then studying piano with Artur Schnabel in Berlin, the Englishman,William Glock (1908-2000), became a music critic, writing at first for the The Daily Telegraph in 1934 and then for ten years until 1946 for The Observer. His columns focus on a very wide and interesting range of topics, but notably the 298 summaries merits of much contemporary music, then widely disparaged by influential senior British musicians. After leaving The Observer, he embarked on a varied programme of musical activities arising directly from his critical work with the newspapers. As director of the unique Dartington Summer School of Music in England, he attracted important mainly European composers, and became the founding editor of the influential periodical, The Score and IMA Magazine, and produced a wide-ranging survey of new music in Europe for the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Third Programme. In 1959 he was appointed Controller of Music at the BBC. He completely overhauled the content of the BBC’s Third Programme and the Proms. He introduced into the broadcasts and the concerts much more adventurous music, especially the contemporary music now being performed on the continent, notably works by Stravinsky, Webern, Schoenberg, Boulez and Stockhausen. Later he became the General Editor of Eulenburg Books which published a number of excellent volumes, mostly on contemporary music. He initiated a stream of BBC commissions that helped a number of composers. Now, not without controversy, he had the British musical public at his command. Using all these activities, Glock singled out for special treatment three composers who had not yet established themselves among British audiences: Roberto Gerhard, Elliott Carter and Pierre Boulez, with performances, commissions and writings. Glock presented Gerhard, who had hardly any published works of his own, with a career-changing edition of The Score which featured in-depth studies of his music. He also brought Gerhard’s name to the musical public with important BBC performances. Carter’s music was actively promoted by Glock. The first comprehensive analytical study of Carter’s music was published by Eulenburg, under Glock’s editorship, transforming at a stroke the reception of his music, especially in Europe. Glock daringly presented Le marteau sans maître by Boulez in a public studio concert sandwiched between the performance of the two great string quintets by Mozart. He then ensured that his music regularly appeared, on prominent platforms provided by the BBC. Boulez’s music also benefitted enormously from two books published under the editorship of Glock. It would be difficult to overestimate his influence on the development of these three composers. All this was achieved by a musician who had spent his formative working years as a music critic, reporting on concerts, broadcasts, writing obituaries and making critical assessments of the work of composers and performing musicians. Keywords: William Glock, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Roberto Gerhard, Elliott Carter, Pierre Boulez 299 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Tjaša Ribizel Popič Symphonic Matinees of Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia: The First Two Decades The concert programme and the performers are vital parts of the activities of the Musical Youth of Slovenia, and the purpose of my contribution is to shed light on different aspects of individual performances of the concert programme by analysing various pieces of data: the time and place of performance, the author, and the critical reception. On the basis of these data, I try to discern trends in the music reviews published in the Musical Youth magazine ( GM) and in daily newspapers. The concerts themselves, however, were for the most part positively received, both in terms of programming and performance. It is important that there were many reviews that most of the writers covered most of the concert events and that these value judgements were published in the daily newspapers of the time, both in Delo and Dnevnik. It was thus possible to spread awareness of the existence of art music and concert events at the same time through their publication in the daily newspapers, and at the same time provide feedback on a particular performance to the performers and authors. Keywords: Symphonic Matinees, Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia, Music Criticism, Trend Analysis Alex Ross Classical Music Criticism: An American Perspective In the United States, as in most other places, the classical-music critic is an endangered species. It would appear that fewer than ten people in a nation of more than three hundred million make their living writing full-time about classical music in the media. There is no reason to believe that the trend will be reversed. On the other hand, musicology is more public-facing than it was been in recent decades, with scholars regularly contributing free-lance to leading publications. The future of American criticism probably lies in a fusion of journalistic and scholarly discourses. Yet journalistic criticism is still a vocation worth fighting for, not lease because of its potential for intellectual independence. Keywords: criticism, journalism, musicology, America, crisis 300 summaries Bianca Schumann “Catholic” Programme Music? Franz Liszt’s Religiosity in the Focus of the Viennese Press (1857–1900) Hardly any debates polarised the Viennese concert-going public in the 19th century more than the one concerning the aesthetic value of symphonic programme music. The Viennese press provided the arena for this great battle: across a variety of newspapers, numerous critics crossed swords in frequently polemical tones over this musical genre, which became established in the 1850s. Interestingly, these composition and performance reviews were rarely limited in their argumentation solely to the evaluation of the musical texture. Reviewers also questioned both the aesthetic value of the main musical genres as well as the composers’ individual artistic ability. In such author-focused discussions, aspects such as national identity or religious convictions also often came to the fore. This paper treats excerpts of this journalistic dispute from the perspective of reception history and thereby focuses on one of those “non-musical” since biographically oriented evaluation criteria. The aim is to understand the role that perceptions of Franz Liszt’s religious convictions played in the debate about his symphonic programme music; i.e. in what way the selected reviewers’ music criticism deployed this non-musical evaluative criterion – for what purposes and with what intentions. Keywords: Franz Liszt, Viennese Press, Symphonic Programme Music, Religiosity Borut Smrekar What is happening to music criticism? Signs of the changing role and importance of arts criticism can be seen in the generalised reduction (or disappearance) of cultural content in media where such content has been a constant presence for decades. The content of criticism is also changing, with the disappearance of critical judgement becoming increasingly noticeable. This is a wider social phenomenon that is not limited to traditional fields of the arts. The reasons for such a development are complex and rooted in profound social changes, the appearance of new media and, not least, the excessive adaptability of critics. The start of this development can be placed in the 1960s, at the time of the pop culture revolution and the gradual affirmation of pop culture as the social and cultural mainstream. A further point is that the internet has permitted a pseudo-democratisation of criticism. This means that the selection process that 301 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today was once carried out by newspapers when engaging critics is absent, with the result that the reader is surrounded by a glut of opinions without any way of clearly distinguishing their relevance. A similarly important role in the fate of arts criticism is played by capital, particularly in the period since the fall of the Iron Curtain. In the Western world, the arts have become, first and foremost, business. With the blurring of quality criteria and the dominance of all-powerful capital in every facet of life, “criticism is a tiny part of the ecology of the music business, but an essential part”. Keywords: criticism, music, art, tabloidization Viktor Velek Emil Břetislav Lvovský or Who was the harshest Viennese critic of Antonín Dvořák’s music? This study is the first attempt at a comprehensive biography of an important personality of Czech and Austrian music journalism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The introduction maps the state of research and provides basic biographical information. The confrontation with older dictionary entries has led to a number of additions, refinements and corrections, but it has also given rise to several hypotheses in areas where Lvovský’s life is still insufficiently documented. Lvovský’s activities in Lviv, Vienna and Berlin are presented chronologically. His journalistic activities for the Prague music periodical Dalibor (reports from Lviv and Vienna) are presented in detail; with regard to the periodical Österreichische Musik- und Theaterzeitung, the study could build on recent research, and generalisa-tions could be made. Lvovský’s educational and compositional activities and contacts with personalities of the Czech music scene are also marginal-ly mentioned. The author of the study is now preparing a “sequel”, i.e. a text focused on Lvovský as a composer and a catalogue of his works. Keywords: Emil Břetislav Lvovský, music, Prague, Lviv, Vienna, music journalism Jernej Weiss “A Critique of Criticism”: An Attempt to Outline “More Appropriate” Sociopolitical Guidelines in Post-World War II Slovenian Music Criticism In 1956, the Tone Tomšič Academic Choir, one of the most successful Slovenian choirs, celebrated its 10th anniversary with a jubilee concert. In planning the event Radovan Gobec, the choirmaster, decided that the gala con-302 summaries cert should feature one of the original Slovenian full-length compositions, so he approached the composer Matija Tomc – “an old friend of the choir and a colleague of Marolt’s” – as early as October 1954, with a request for a composition. Tomc thus wrote the cantata Stara pravda, whose premiere was performed on 12 March 1956 in the Union Hall in Ljubljana. The performance was met with harsh reactions from some of the more orthodox Marxist ideologues, who resented the choir’s leadership for honouring the compositional contribution of the Catholic intellectual Matija Tomc after the concert. They put so much pressure on the choir that it lost its choirmaster and almost fell apart. The words used to describe the incident soon shifted from political to aesthetic vocabulary. Sergej Vošnjak, editor-in-chief of Slovenski poročevalec, then one of the main Slovenian daily newspapers, used the affair as an occasion to attack critics who were supposed to evaluate art purely from an artistic point of view, without taking into account socio-political perspectives. In a long article entitled “A Critique of Criticism”, which appeared in Slovenski poročevalec less than a month after the concert on 8 April 1956, he wrote: “I think the basic weakness of our cultural criticism is that it does not evaluate each individual work according to its totality, according to its general social role, but tries to separate an ‘aesthetic’, one might even say artisanal part, which should be the subject of art criticism, from the general social significance of this work, which should be dealt with (preferably as little as possible, of course!) by the ‘political’ critics. ” What came to be known as “the incident in the Union Hall” was thus not only a reckoning with the clergy, but also an attempt to discipline critics by setting out more “appropriate” socio-political guidelines for music-critical writing. The latter was supposedly incapable of seeing the social utility of purely “aesthetic” writing and, consequently, incapable of politically condemning “deviant” social phenomena. Keywords: cantata, Old justice, Matija Tomc, Criticism, Post-World War II 303 Avtorji Stefan Keym (keym@uni-leipzig.de) je profesor historične muzikologije na Univerzi v Leipzigu. Študiral je muzikologijo, germanistiko in zgodovino v Mainzu, Parizu (na Sorboni) in Halleju, doktoriral na Univerzi Martina Luthra v Halle-Wittenbergu na temo Messiaenova opera Saint François d’Assise in se habilitiral s temo o nemško-poljskem simfoničnem kulturnem transferju na Univerzi v Leipzigu. Tam je deloval kot znanstveni asistent in vodja projekta Nemške raziskovalne fundacije (DFG) »Leipzig in internacionalizacija simfoni-ke 1835–1914«. Po gostujočih profesurah, med drugim v Zürichu in Berlinu (Univerza Humboldt), je bil profesor na Univerzi Jeana Jaurèsa v Toulousu. Med osrednjimi temami njegovega raziskovalnega dela so kulturni trans-ferji, identitete in politični konteksti, institucije in repertoarji (koncerti in založbe), dramaturgije oblik glavnih instrumentalnih glasbenih zvrsti od 18. do 20. stoletja, glasbeno gledališče od Wagnerja naprej. Luba Kijanovska (luba.kyjan@gmail.com) se je rodila v Lvovu in študirala muzikologijo na Konservatoriju Mikole Lisenka v Lvovu (kasneje Glasbena akademija Mikole Lisenka). Leta 1985 je doktorirala na temo funkcije programske glasbe pri dojemanju glasbenega dela in se leta 2000 habilitirala o razvoju galicijske glasbene kulture 19. in 20. stoletja. Od leta 1987 je asistentka, od leta 1995 profesorica in od leta 1991 predstojnica katedre za glasbeno zgodovino na Državni glasbeni akademiji Mikole Lisenka v Lvovu. Od leta 2021 je članica Državne akademi-305 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today je umetnosti v Ukrajini in od leta 2022 članica Academia Europeae. Glavna področja njenega raziskovalnega dela so glasbena kultura Galicije, glasbena psihologija, zgodovina ukrajinske glasbe, odnosi ukrajinske glasbe do drugih evropskih državnih glasbenih šol in glasbena pedagogika. Je članica delovne skupine »Zgodovina glasbe v srednji in vzhodni Evropi« in avtorica več kot dvajsetih monografij in učbenikov ter več kot 500 člankov v znanstvenih zbornikih in revijah v Ukrajini, na Poljskem, v Nemčiji in Av-striji, na Slovaškem, v ZDA, Romuniji, Litvi, Sloveniji, Švici in Italiji itd. Susanne Kogler (susanne.kogler@uni-graz.at) je trenutno predstojnica Oddelka za umetnost in muzikologijo na Univerzi v Gradcu. Je tudi ena od dveh predavateljic raziskovalnega področja Per-cepcija: episteme, estetika, politika na Fakulteti za humanistiko. Študirala je klasično filologijo in muzikologijo na Univerzi Karla in Franca v Gradcu ter glasbeno pedagogiko na Univerzi za glasbo in uprizoritvene umetnosti v Gradcu. Doktorirala je z disertacijo na temo »Jezik in jezikovnost v sodob-nem glasbenem ustvarjanju« ( Studien zur Wertungsforschung 39, Gradec/ Dunaj: Universal Edition, 2003). Leta 2012 se je na Inštitutu za muzikologijo Univerze v Gradcu habilitirala s študijo »Adorno proti Lyotardu: moderna in postmoderna estetika« (Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag, 2014). Med letoma 1996 in 2011 je bila raziskovalna sodelavka na Inštitutu za raziskovanje vrednotenja na Univerzi za glasbo in uprizoritvene umetnosti v Gradcu, med letoma 2010 in 2011 je bila namestnica direktorja Centra za raziskovanje spolov, od leta 2012 pa je direktorica univerzitetnega arhiva. Bila je za-sebna predavateljica na Inštitutu za muzikologijo na Univerzi za glasbo in uprizoritvene umetnosti v Gradcu (2013–2020) ter predavateljica na univerzah na Dunaju (2009) in v Celovcu (2014). Med letoma 2006 in 2009 je bila na raziskovalnem gostovanju v Parizu (habilitacijska štipendija Charlotte- -Bühler FWF). Kot gostujoča profesorica je predavala na Univerzi v New Yorku (2005), Univerzi Pariz 8 (2007 in 2010) in Univerzi v Ljubljani (2018). Od leta 2020 je sourednica revije Fokus Musik. Musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge der Kunstuniversität Graz (Graz: Leykam). Je avtorica številnih publikacij s področja zgodovine in estetike glasbe 19.–21. stoletja. Lucija Konfic (lucijam@hazu.hr) je znanstvena sodelavka na Oddelku za zgodovino hrvaške glasbe Hrva- ške akademije znanosti in umetnosti v Zagrebu. Leta 2005 je diplomirala iz muzikologije (Glasbena akademija v Zagrebu) in leta 2008 iz bibliotekar-stva (Filozofska fakulteta v Zagrebu), doktorat pa je pridobila leta 2017 na 306 avtorji Univerzi za glasbo in uprizoritvene umetnosti v Gradcu. Aktivno se ukvarja z raziskovanjem zgodovine hrvaške glasbe, pri čemer jo posebej zani-majo glasbena teorija v 18. stoletju, specifični vidiki hrvaške glasbe (17.–20. stoletje), digitalna muzikologija, ohranjanje glasbene dediščine in glasbeni arhivi. Od leta 2020 je glavna urednica hrvaške muzikološke revije Arti musices. Darja Koter (Darja.Koter@ag.uni-lj.si) je redna profesorica za muzikološke predmete na Akademiji za glasbo Univerze v Ljubljani. Raziskovalno se ukvarja s historičnimi instrumen-ti, z glasbeno ikonografijo, zgodovino glasbene poustvarjalnosti, glasbenega šolstva ter z delovanjem in opusti slovenskih skladateljev. Sodeluje v raziskovalnih projektih Univerze v Ljubljani, Ministrstva za kulturo RS in mednarodnih projektih. Monografije: Glasbilarstvo na Slovenskem (2001, 2004), Musica coelestis et musica profana. Glasbeni motivi v likovni dedišči-ni od severne Istre do Vremske doline (2008), Slovenska glasba 1848–1918 (2012), Slovenska glasba 1918–1991 (2012), 90 let Glasbene šole Slavka Osterca Ljutomer (2018); Akademija za glasbo 80 let (2020). Prejela je Mantuani-jevo priznanje za dosežke v muzikologiji (2014) in Zlato plaketo Univerze v Ljubljani (2021). Hartmut Krones (krones@mdw.ac.at) se je rodil leta 1944 na Dunaju in je študiral glasbeno vzgojo, germanistiko – pedagoška smer (mag.), petje, pedagogiko petja (mag. art.) in muzikologijo (dr. phil.). Od leta 1970 poučuje na Akademiji (od leta 1998 Univerzi) za glasbo in upodabljajočo umetnost na Dunaju; do septembra 2013 je vodil Inštitut za raziskovanje glasbenih slogov (oddelka Stilistika in poustvar-jalna praksa ter Znanstveno središče Arnolda Schönberga). Je sodelavec in član strokovnega sveta Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (strokovni svet za »Avstrijo v 20. stoletju«) in Zgodovinskega slovarja za retoriko, avtor člankov na področju poustvarjalne prakse stare in nove glasbe, glasbene simbolike in retorike ter glasbe in glasbene zgodovine 20. stoletja; avtor knjig, med drugim o življenju in delu L. van Beethovna in A. Schönberga. Leta 2018 je pod njegovim vodstvom izšel 1. zvezek zbirke Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Schriften Arnold Schönbergs (Kritična skupna izdaja spisov Arnolda Schönberga), v letih 2023/2024 bosta izšla še dva zvezka. 307 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today Helmut Loos (hloos@uni-leipzig.de) je študiral glasbeno pedagogiko v Bonnu (državni izpiti), nato muzikologijo, umetnostno zgodovino in filozofijo na Univerzi v Bonnu; leta 1980 je promoviral, leta 1989 pa habilitiral. Od leta 1981 do leta 1989 je bil znanstveni sodelavec Muzikološkega seminarja Univerze v Bonnu. Med letoma 1989 in 1993 je bil direktor Inštituta za vzhodnonemško glasbo v Bergisch Glad-bachu. Od aprila 1993 je bil predstojnik katedre za historično muzikologijo na Tehniški univerzi v Chemnitzu, od oktobra 2001 do marca 2017 pa na Univerzi v Leipzigu. 22. oktobra 2003 je bil imenovan za zaslužnega profe-sorja Glasbenega konservatorija Mikole Lisenka v Lvovu. Med letoma 2003 in 2005 je bil dekan Fakultete za zgodovino, umetnostne vede in orienta-listiko Univerze v Leipzigu. 2. aprila 2005 je bil imenovan za častnega čla-na Družbe za nemško glasbeno kulturo v jugovzhodni Evropi (München), 30. oktobra 2014 pa je postal častni doktor Nacionalne glasbene univerze v Bukarešti. Je član mednarodnih uredniških svetov revij Hudebni věda (Praga), Lituvos muzikologija (Vilna), Menotyra. Studies in Art (Vilna), Ars & Humanitas (Ljubljana), Musicology Today (Bukarešta), Muzica. Romanian Music Magazine (Bukarešta) in Studies in Penderecki (Princeton, New Jersey). Wolfgang Marx (wolfgang.marx@ucd.ie) je izredni profesor muzikologije na University College Dublin (UCD) in član humanističnega inštituta UCD. Njegova glavna področja raziskav so postresničnost in glasba, György Ligeti, upodobitve smrti v glasbi in teorija glasbenih zvrsti. Njegove nedavne publikacije vključujejo Music and Death (The Boydell Press, 2023) in ‘ I don’t belong anywhere’: György Ligeti at 100 (Brepols, 2022). Je glavni urednik nove serije Death in History, Culture, and Society pri založbi Brill. Lidiya Melnyk (lidamelnyk@gmail.com) je asistentka na Državni glasbeni akademiji Mikole Lisenka v Lvovu. Bila je tudi predavateljica na Institutu za muzikologijo na Univerzi na Dunaju in na ukrajinski Svobodni univerzi v Münchnu. Med letoma 1994 in 2002 je študirala na Glasbeni akademiji Mikole Lisenka (častna diploma iz glasbene teorije in zgodovine ter podiplomski študij). Leta 2004 je doktorirala na Državni glasbeni akademiji v Kijevu (disertacija o novobaročnih tenden-cah v glasbi 20. stoletja) in se leta 2014 habilitirala na isti akademiji z raziskovalnim delom o glasbenem novinarstvu. Njeni znanstveni interesi so na področju zgodovine glasbene kulture Galicije (kulturni transfer za časa Av-308 avtorji stro-Ogrske, glasbena kultura galicijskih Judov, glasba in ideologija), apli-kativne muzikologije, glasbene kritike in glasbenega novinarstva. Že več kot dvajset let je aktivna na področju glasbenega novinarstva. Niall O‘Loughlin (N.Oloughlin@lboro.ac.uk) je študiral glasbo na univerzah v Edinburgu (magisterij) in Leicestru (doktorat) ter računalništvo na Univerzi v Oxfordu. Specializiral se je za glasbo 20. in 21. stoletja v Sloveniji, Veliki Britaniji in na Poljskem. Leta 2000 je v Ljubljani izšla njegova knjiga Novejša glasba v Sloveniji: osebnosti in razvoj. Je avtor več kot 30 prispevkov za simpozije Slovenskih glasbenih dnevov, številnih prispevkov za druge konference, različnih člankov za Muzikolo- ški zbornik, The Musical Times in Tempo, De musica disserenda, poglavij v knjigah ter številnih člankov za slovarje New Grove Dictionaries of Music. Leta 2007 je bil izvoljen za dopisnega člana Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Tjaša Ribizel Popič (tjasa.ribizel@gmail.com) je doktorirala leta 2013 na Oddelku za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Zaposlena je na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani, kot asistentka sodeluje na Pedagoški fakulteti Univerze v Mariboru, je sourednica recenzij Muzikološkega zbornika (Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete) ter članica organizacijskega odbora Slovenskih glasbenih dni. V zadnjem času se posveča predvsem gledališkemu delu, v sodelovanju z režiserjem Draganom Živadinovim. Alex Ross (alexrossny@gmail.com) je od leta 1996 glasbeni kritik pri reviji The New Yorker. Njegova prva knjiga The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century iz leta 2007 je prejela nagrado National Book Critics Circle Award in nagrado Guardian First Book Award ter se uvrstila med finaliste za Pulitzerjevo nagrado. Leta 2010 je objavil zbirko esejev Listen to This. Njegova tretja knjiga, Wagnerism: Art and Politics in the Shadow of Music, je izšla leta 2020. Ross je prejel medal-jo Georgea Peabodyja, nagrado za umetnost in literaturo Ameriške akademije za umetnost in literaturo, Guggenheimovo štipendijo in MacArthur-jevo štipendijo. Bianca Schumann (bianca.schumann@univie.ac.at) je diplomirala iz instrumentalne pedagogike (klavir) na Visoki šoli Roberta Schumanna v Düsseldorfu (2010–2014) ter iz filozofije in muzikologije 309 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today na Univerzi Heinrich-Heine v Düsseldorfu (2011–2014). Magistrski študij muzikologije je z odliko opravila na Univerzi na Dunaju (2014–2016). Doktorski študij muzikologije na Univerzi na Dunaju je z odliko zaključila leta 2022 z disertacijo o zgodovini recepcije programske simfonične glasbe na Dunaju (1855–1900). Borut Smrekar (borut.smrekar@guest.arnes.si) je po izobrazbi dirigent, pianist in pravnik. Doktoriral je na temo »Pro-blemi retuš orkestrskega zvoka v Beethovnovih simfonijah. Poučeval je na Akademiji za glasbo in na Oddelku za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. V letih 1998 do 2007 je bil ravnatelj in umetniški vodja Slovenskega narodnega gledališča Opera in balet Ljubljana. Sodeloval je v žirijah številnih mednarodnih tekmovanj (Belvedere na Dunaju, Musica sacra v Rimu itd.). Ob koncertni dejavnosti je prevedel več opernih li-bretov, izdal učbenik dirigentske tehnike ter objavil vrsto referatov, s katerimi je sodeloval na muzikoloških simpozijih. Dejaven je tudi kot publicist in kritik. Viktor Velek (viktor.velek@gmx.de) je muzikolog. Med njegovimi raziskovalnimi temami so kult svetega Vaclava in druga češka zgodovinska duhovna izročila v glasbi, glasbena kultura slovanskih manjšin na Dunaju med letoma 1840 in 1945 ter glasbeno sodelova-nje med Čehi in Lužiškimi Srbi/Vendi v “dolgem 19. stoletju”. Jernej Weiss (jernej.weiss@ag.uni-lj.si) je študiral muzikologijo na Oddelku za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (1999–2002) in Inštitutu za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Regensburgu (2002–2003). Med letoma 2005 in 2009 je deloval kot asistent na Oddelku za muzikologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani in bil (2011–2020) glavni in odgovorni urednik osrednje slovenske muzikološke publikacije Muzikološki zbornik. Poleg tega je v uredništvih več drugih znanstvenih in strokovnih periodičnih publikacij ter je vklju- čen v različne domače in mednarodne znanstvene projekte. Od leta 2016 je redni professor za področje muzikologije na Univerzi v Mariboru, od leta 2019 pa tudi na Univerzi v Ljubljani. Kot gostujoči predavatelj je nastopil na univerzah v Gradcu, Brnu, Leipzigu, Cardiffu itd. Od leta 2016 vodi mednarodni muzikološki simpozij Slovenskih glasbenih dnevov in je glavni urednik zbirke znanstvenih monografij Studia musicologica Labacensia. 310 avtorji Raziskovalno se osredotoča na vprašanja, povezana z glasbo od 19. stoletja do danes, posebej s tisto, ki se tako ali drugače dotika slovenskega in češke-ga kulturnega prostora. Je avtor štirih znanstvenih monografij. V letu 2021 je bila s strani češke založbe KLP – Koniasch Latin Press objavljena prede-lava njegove zadnje monografije z naslovom Čeští hudebníci ve Slovinsku v 19. a na začátku 20. století. 311 Contributors Stefan Keym (keym@uni-leipzig.de) ist Professor für historische Musikwissenschaft an der Universität Leipzig. Er studierte Musikwissenschaft, Germanistik und Geschichte in Mainz, Paris (Sorbonne) und Halle, promovierte an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg über Messiaens Oper Saint François d’Assise und habilitierte sich über deutsch-polnischen Symphonie-Kulturtransfer an der Universität Leipzig. Dort wirkte er als wissenschaftlicher Assistent und als Leiter des DFG-Projekts „Leipzig und die Internationalisierung der Symphonik 1835-1914“. Nach Gastprofessuren u.a. in Zürich und Berlin (Humboldt) war er Professor an der Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès. Zu seinen Forschungs-schwerpunkten zählen: kulturelle Transfers, Identitäten und politische Kontexte; Institutionen und Repertoires (Konzerte und Verlage); Formdra-maturgien der großen Instrumentalmusikgattungen des 18.-20. Jahrhunderts; Musiktheater seit Wagner. Luba Kijanovska (luba.kyjan@gmail.com) wurde in Lviv geboren und studierte Musikwissenschaft am Lysenko-Kon-servatorium in Lviv (spätere Musikakademie „Mykola Lysenko“). 1985 promovierte sie über die Funktionen der Programmmusik in der Wahrnehmung des musikalischen Werks und habilitierte sich 2000 über die Entwicklung der galizischen Musikkultur des 19. und 20. Jhr. Seit 1987 ist sie Assistenzprofessorin, seit 1995 Professorin und seit 1991 Inhaberin des Lehrstuhls für Musikgeschichte an der Nationalen Lysenko-Musikakade-313 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today mie in Lviv. Seit 2021 ist sie Mitglied der Nationalen Akademie der Küns-te der Ukraine und seit 2022 Mitglied der Academia Europaea. Ihre For-schungsschwerpunkte sind die Musikkultur Galiziens, Musikpsychologie, die Geschichte der ukrainischen Musik, die Beziehungen der ukrainischen Musik zu anderen europäischen nationalen Musikschulen und Musikpädagogik. Sie ist Mitglied der Arbeitsgruppe „Musikgeschichte in Mittel- und Osteuropa“ und Autorin von über 20 Monografien und Lehrbüchern sowie über 500 Artikeln in Fachbüchern und Zeitschriften in der Ukraine, Polen, Deutschland, Österreich, der Slowakei, den USA, Rumänien, Litauen, Slo-wenien, der Schweiz, Italien usw. Susanne Kogler (susanne.kogler@uni-graz.at) is currently Head of the Department of Arts and Musicology at the University of Graz. She is also one of the two speakers of the research area Perception: Episteme, Aesthetics, Politics at the Faculty of Humanities. She studied music education, classical philology and musicology at the University and the University of Music and Performing Arts in Graz. Dissertation on “Language and Linguisticity in Contemporary Musical Creation” ( Studien zur Wertungsforschung 39, Graz/Vienna: Universal Edition, 2003). 2012 Habilitation at the Institute of Musicology at the University of Graz with the study “Adorno versus Lyotard: modern and postmodern aesthetics” (publication 2014, Karl Alber Verlag, Freiburg). 1996–2011 research associate at the Institute for Valuation Research at the University of Art in Graz, 2010–2011 deputy director of the Center for Gender Research, since 2012 director of the University Archives. Teaching position as private lecturer at the Institute of Musicology at the University of Graz (2013–2020) as well as lecturer at the Universities of Vienna (2009) and Klagenfurt (2014). 2006–2009 research stay in Paris (Charlotte-Bühler habilitation grant of the FWF). Visiting professor at New York City University (2005), the University of Paris 8 (2007 and 2010) and the University of Ljubljana (2018). Since 2020 Co-Editor of Fokus Musik. Musikwissenschaftliche Beiträge der Kunstuniversität Graz (Graz: Leykam). Numerous publications on music history and aesthetics of the 19th–21st centuries. Lucija Konfic (lucijam@hazu.hr) is a research associate at the Department for History of Croatian Music, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb. She graduated in musicology (Music Academy in Zagreb) in 2005 and librarianship (Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb) in 2008, and received her PhD in 2017 at the Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst in Graz. She is actively researching 314 contributors the history of Croatian music with a special interest in music theory in the 18th century, specific aspects of Croatian music (17-20th centuries), digital musicology, preservation of musical heritage and music archives. Since 2020 she has been the editor-in-chief of Arti musices Croatian musicological journal. Darja Koter (Darja.Koter@ag.uni-lj.si) is full professor at the Academy of Music of Ljubljana University. Research works on various topics like history of musical instruments, music ico-nography, music performing, music education, and about life and works of composers. Collaboration in research projects of the University of Ljubljana, the Ministry of Culture of Republic of Slovenia and in international projects. Monographs: Glasbilarstvo na Slovenskem (2001, 2004), Musica coelestis et musica profana. Glasbeni motivi v likovni dediščini od severne Istre do Vremske doline (2008), Slovenska glasba 1848–1918 (2012), Slovenska glasba 1918–1991 (2012), 90 let Glasbene šole Slavka Osterca Ljutomer (2018); Akademija za glasbo 80 let (2020). She has received the Mantuani award (2014) and The Golden Plaque of the University of Ljubljana (2021). Hartmut Krones (krones@mdw.ac.at) geb. 1944 in Wien, studierte Musikerziehung und Germanistik für das Lehramt (Mag.), Gesang, Gesangspädagogik (Mag. art.) sowie Musikwissenschaft (Dr. phil.), unterrichtet seit 1970 an der Akademie (1998 Universität) für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien und leitete bis September 2013 das „Institut für Musikalische Stilforschung“ (Abteilungen „Stilkunde und Aufführungspraxis“ sowie „Wissenschaftszentrum Arnold Schönberg“). Mitarbeiter und Fachbeirat der MGG (hier Fachbeirat für „Österreich, 20. Jhdt.“) sowie des „Historischen Wörterbuchs der Rhetorik“, Publikationen in den Bereichen Aufführungspraxis Alter und Neuer Musik, Musikalische Symbolik und Rhetorik sowie Musik und Musikgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts (incl. Musik im Exil); Bücher u. a. über Leben und Werk von L. van Beethoven sowie von A. Schönberg. 2018 erschien der 1. Band der von ihm geleiteten Kritischen Gesamtausgabe der Schriften Arnold Schönbergs, 2023/24 folgen zwei weitere Bände. Helmut Loos (hloos@uni-leipzig.de) Studium der Musikpädagogik in Bonn (Staatsexamina), anschließend Musikwissenschaft, Kunstgeschichte und Philosophie an der Universität Bonn; 1980 Promotion, 1989 Habilitation. 1981 bis 1989 Wissenschaftlicher Mit-315 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today arbeiter am Musikwissenschaftlichen Seminar der Universität Bonn. 1989 bis 1993 Direktor des Instituts für deutsche Musik im Osten in Bergisch Gladbach. Seit April 1993 Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Historische Musikwissenschaft an der Technischen Universität Chemnitz, von Oktober 2001 bis März 2017 an der Universität Leipzig. 22. 10. 2003 Ernennung zum Professor honoris causa der Lyssenko-Musikhochschule Lemberg/L’viv. 2003 bis 2005 Dekan der Fakultät für Geschichte, Kunst- und Orientwissen-schaften der Universität Leipzig. 2. 4. 2005 Ernennung zum Ehrenmitglied der Gesellschaft für deutsche Musikkultur im südöstlichen Europa (München). 30. 10. 2014 Ehrendoktor der Universitatea Naţională de Muzică din Bucureşti. Mitglied in den internationalen Editionsräten der Zeitschriften Hudebni věda (Prag), Lituvos muzikologija (Vilnius), Menotyra. Studies in Art (Vilnius), Ars & Humanitas (Ljubljana), Musicology Today (Bukarest), Muzica. Romanian Music Magazine (Bukarest) und Studies in Penderecki (Princeton, New Jersey). Wolfgang Marx (wolfgang.marx@ucd.ie) is Associate Professor in Musicology at University College Dublin (UCD) and a member of the UCD Humanities Institute. His main research interests include post-truth and music, György Ligeti, the representation of death in music and the theory of musical genres. Recent publications include Music and Death (The Boydell Press, 2023) and ‘ I don’t belong anywhere’: György Ligeti at 100 (Brepols, 2022). He is a general editor of Brill’s new series Death in History, Culture, and Society. Lidiya Melnyk (lidamelnyk@gmail.com) ist Assistenzprofessorin an der Nationalen Musikakademie „Mykola Lysenko“ in Lviv. Sie war auch Lehrbeauftragte am Institut für Musikwissenschaft der Universität Wien und der Ukrainischen Freien Universität München. 1994-2002 studierte sie an der Lysenko-Musikakademie (Ehrendiplom in Musiktheorie und -geschichte und Aufbaustudium). Im Jahr 2004 promovierte sie an der Nationalen Musikakademie in Kiew (Dissertation über neobarocke Tendenzen in der Musik des 20. Jahrhunderts) und 2014 habilitierte sie sich an derselben Akademie mit einer Forschung über Musikjournalismus. Ihre wissenschaftlichen Interessen liegen in den Gebieten der Geschichte der Musikkultur Galiziens (Kulturtransfer in der österreichischen Zeit, Musikkultur der galizischen Juden, Musik und Ideologie); angewandter 316 contributors Musikwissenschaft; Musikkritik und -journalismus. Seit über zwanzig Jahren arbeitet sie aktiv im Bereich des Musikjournalismus. Niall O‘Loughlin (N.Oloughlin@lboro.ac.uk) studied music at the Universities of Edinburgh (MA) and Leicester (PhD) and computing at the University of Oxford. He has specialised in the 20th and 21st-cenury music of Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Poland. His book Novejša glasba v Sloveniji: osebnosti in razvoj was published in Ljubljana in 2000. He has written over 30 papers for Slovene Music Days symposia, given many other conference papers, written numerous articles for Musikološki zbornik, The Musical Times, Tempo, De musica disserenda, chapters in books and many articles for the New Grove Dictionaries of Music. In 2007 he was elected Corresponding Member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Tjaša Ribizel Popič (tjasa.ribizel@gmail.com) received her PhD in 2013 at the Department of Musicology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, where she is currently employed. She also works as a teaching assistant at the Faculty of Education, the University of Maribor, Review Co-editor of the Musicological Annual (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Press), and member of the organizing committee of the Slovenian Music Days. Recently, she has been focusing mainly on theatre work, in collaboration with the director Dragan Živadinov. Alex Ross (alexrossny@gmail.com) has been the music critic of The New Yorker since 1996. His first book, The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, published in 2007, won a National Book Critics Circle Award and the Guardian First Book Award, and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. An essay collection, Listen to This, appeared in 2010. His third book, Wagnerism: Art and Politics in the Shadow of Music, was published in 2020. Ross has received the George Peabody Medal, an Arts and Letters Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and a MacArthur Fellowship. Bianca Schumann (bianca.schumann@univie.ac.at) Bachelor’s degrees in instrumental pedagogy (piano) at the Robert Schumann Hochschule Düsseldorf (2010–2014) as well as in philosophy and musicology at the Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf (2011–2014). Master’s degree in musicology at the Universität Wien with distinction 317 glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today (2014–2016). Doctoral studies in musicology at the Universität Wien on a thesis on the reception history of symphonic programme music in Vienna (1855–1900) completed with distinction in 2022. Borut Smrekar (borut.smrekar@guest.arnes.si) studied conducting, piano and law. Title of his Ph.D. dissertation was “Problem of Retouches in the Symphonies of Beethoven”. He was lecturing at Musicology department and Music Academy od University in Ljubljana. In years 1998 to 2005 he was general manager and artistic director of Slovenian National Theatre Opera and Ballet in Ljubljana. He was a jury member at important international music competitions (Belvedere in Vienna, Musica sacra in Rome etc.). Beside concert activities he has translated several opera libretti, published a textbook on conducting technique and several reports, presented at different musicological symposiums. He is active as publicist and critic as well. Viktor Velek (viktor.velek@gmx.de) is a musicologist. His research topics include the cult of St. Wenceslas and other Czech historical spiritual traditions in music, the musical culture of the Slavic minorities in Vienna 1840–1945, and musical cooperation between the Czechs and Sorbs/Wends in the “long 19th century”. Jernej Weiss (jernej.weiss@ag.uni-lj.si) studied musicology at the Department of Musicology of the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Arts, and at the Institute of Musicology of the University of Regensburg. From 2005 to 2009 he was employed as an assistant at the Department of Musicology in Ljubljana. From 2011 to 2020 he was editor-in-chief of Slovenia’s principal peer-reviewed musicological journal, Muzikološki zbornik / Musicological Annual. He is on the editorial boards of several scholarly journals and specialised publications and participates in various domestic and international scientific projects. A full professor of musicology at the University of Maribor since 2016 and at the University of Ljubljana since 2019, he has been a visiting lecturer at the universities of Brno, Graz, Leipzig and Cardiff, among others. Since 2016 he has headed the international musicology symposium of the Slovenian Music Days and has been editor-in-chief of the Studia musicologica Labacensia. His research work covers issues related to music from the nineteenth century to the present day, with a particular focus on the Slovenian and Czech cultural environments. He is the author of four scientific monographs. 318 contributors In 2021, the Czech academic publisher Koniasch Latin Press published an adaptation of his monograph on Czech musicians in the 19th and early 20th centuries in Slovenia, entitled Čeští hudebníci ve Slovinsku v 19. a na začátku 20. století. In 2020 he received the ‘Zlata plaketa’ (Golden Plaque), the highest research award of the University of Ljubljana, for his research achievements. In 2023, he was awarded the ‘Nagrada Univerze v Mariboru’ (University of Maribor Prize) for his scientific research work, the highest award for excellence, achievement and merits at the University of Maribor. 319 Document Outline Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2024. Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7 Kolofon ▪︎ Colophone Vsebina ▪︎ Contents Jernej Weiss ▪︎ Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes Jernej Weiss ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today Alex Ross ▪︎ “Classical Music Criticism: An American Perspective” Bibliography Susanne Kogler ▪︎ Innovation, Art, Society, and Life: Deliberations on Music Criticism’s Past, Presence and Future Historical Deliberations Some Case Studies E. T. A. Hoffmann Claude Debussy Criticism Today Bibliography Hartmut Krones ▪︎ Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker im „streitbaren“ Wien der 1880er Jahre Bibliografie Bianca Schumann ▪︎ “Catholic” Programme Music? Franz Liszt’s Religiosity in the Focus of the Viennese Press (1857–1900) Bibliography Helmut Loos ▪︎ Music of Progress and the Future: On the Roots of a Fierce Press Feud in the Second Half of the 19th Century Bibliography Stefan Keym ▪︎ Künstlerische vs. politische Aspektevon Musikkritik: Zur Rezeption ‚ausländischer‘ Orchestermusik in der Leipziger Musikpressedes 19. Jahrhunderts Bibliographie Viktor Velek ▪︎ Emil Břetislav Lvovský or Who was the harshest Viennese critic of Antonín Dvořák’s music? State of Research Literature Sources General information Prague (1857–1881) Lviv (1881–1890) Vienna (1890–) Franz Simandl (1840–1912) German scene in Vienna Czech/Slavic Viennese minority Musical journalism: Dalibor Music journalism: Neue musikalische Presse Music journalism: Deutsche Kunst– und Musik-Zeitung, Die Lyra(Wien), Musikalisches Wochenblatt (Leipzig) Music journalism: Österreichische Musik– und Theaterzeitung Concert tours or “out of Vienna” Teaching activities Berlin, Dresden Vienna (1904–1910) Lvovský as a composer and librettist Conclusion Bibliography Niall O’Loughlin ▪︎ Putting Music Criticism to Positive Purpose: William Glock’s Promotion of Three Composers Preliminaries Newspaper Music Critic Developments BBC Controller of Music General Editor of Eulenburg Books Three Composers Roberto Gerhard Elliott Carter Pierre Boulez Glock’s Achievement Bibliography Wolfgang Marx ▪︎ Music Criticism in Ireland Irish Music Criticism in the Nineteenth Century Charles Acton and Irish Music Criticism in the Later Twentieth Century Irish Music Criticism in the Digital Age Conclusion Bibliography Lucija Konfic ▪︎ Music in the Karlovac Press in the Nineteenth Century Introduction – Karlovac’s newspapers and their editors Music in newspapers – types of writing Competitions Occasional songs Advertisements Concluding remarks Bibliography Luba Kijanovska, Lidiya Melnyk ▪︎ Musikjournalismus vs. Musikkritik heute: überleben oder fortstreben? Bibliographie Darja Koter ▪︎ Lucijan Marija Škerjanc: Critic of the Jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942 Bibliography Jernej Weiss ▪︎ “A Critique of Criticism”: An Attempt to Outline “More Appropriate” Sociopolitical Guidelinesin Post-World War II Slovenian Music Criticism The decline of church music after the Second World War Cantata Stara pravda (“The Old Rights”) from Matija Tomc The view of the critics before the concert The “incident in the Union Hall” “A Critique of Criticism” Bibliography Tjaša Ribizel Popič ▪︎ Symphonic Matinees of Jeunesses Musicales Slovenia: The First Two Decades1 I. II. Number of reviews by year Number of reviews per newspaper Music critics The critic, publication, and critical reception Conclusion Bibliography Appendix Borut Smrekar ▪︎ What is happening to music criticism? What is music(al) criticism? The importance of art criticism Who should a critic be and what should criticism be like? So what should criticism be like? Criticism in Slovenia Bibliography Povzetki Summaries Avtorji Contributors