Page 114 - 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
P. 114
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 mu-
sic) 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 enthusias-
tically welcomed changes in the positions of directors, bandleaders, con-
cert 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 close-
ly followed Czech musicians working permanently or as guests in Lviv, and
he commented in detail on the performances of works by Czech compos-
ers (e.g. A. Dvořák, V. Hřímalý, E. Chvála, Z. Fibich, Smetana, Novotný,
A. Förchtgott-Tovačovský, K. Bendl), praising their level above Polish au-
thors (Wł. Żeleński, H. Jarecki, Z. Noskowski). He promoted Czech music
in Lviv through his journalistic activities, and in Prague he helped to estab-
lish 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 pub-
lisher 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
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 mu-
sic) 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 enthusias-
tically welcomed changes in the positions of directors, bandleaders, con-
cert 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 close-
ly followed Czech musicians working permanently or as guests in Lviv, and
he commented in detail on the performances of works by Czech compos-
ers (e.g. A. Dvořák, V. Hřímalý, E. Chvála, Z. Fibich, Smetana, Novotný,
A. Förchtgott-Tovačovský, K. Bendl), praising their level above Polish au-
thors (Wł. Żeleński, H. Jarecki, Z. Noskowski). He promoted Czech music
in Lviv through his journalistic activities, and in Prague he helped to estab-
lish 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 pub-
lisher 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
